fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don’t understand, maybe it would help if you link to an article or something about the case you’re talking about.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Government Response To The Coronavirus (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter James Daulton
- Start date
- Status
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I dont feel like digging for it and I am sure I am messing up some details. Most important ones which I remember for sure is that the employee was barred from wearing the mask sometime in march and claims his infection occurred sometime in March from a coworker. I only remember that because I remember saying to myself immediately what a bs lawsuit and stopped reading as soon as I read the exposure happened in March. I am pretty sure it was in Florida if you feel like googling.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
here is the proposed language if you feel like reading. That provision i listed was copied straight from there.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Thanks for this. I haven't read it closely, but I think the problem is that the law defines "reasonableness" based solely upon compliance with government mandates and restrictions. To me, that seems woefully inadequate - that's not what "reasonableness" means.
Here's where I think it matters. Imagine that an employee died from COVID as a result of working in a meat packing plant that was operating with unsafe conditions. The infection took place well after there was a scientific consensus that crowded spaces with poor ventilation, etc. were dangerous working conditions. In that situation, I think that the employer should bear the burden of that loss, not the family of the dead employee. An employer owes its employees safe working conditions. But under this law the company could just simply say "we didn't violate any of the applicable laws related to COVID" and that would constitute a full defense. I personally think that's tragic.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Couldnt disagree more.
Under your way just being a restaurant and open for business means you can be sued if an employee catches covid.
I think thats crazy.
The Commish
Footballguy
I see both sides of this issue and agree with both of you in a weird way
What would your answer be to holding companies liable where it's obvious their actions/inactions are a direct contributor to a person catching COVID...you can use FG's generic example if you like. Or is it your position there is no circumstance where they should be held liable?
dgreen
Footballguy
How did lawsuits against tobacco companies work? Were those based on the companies breaking laws/regulations or were they based on the idea that the company should have gone beyond the law to protect people (I guess this example would be consumers and we're talking employees, and maybe that's different?).
I guess I'm trying to think of other areas where we legally blame an entity for something where they followed all the laws/regulations.
I guess I'm trying to think of other areas where we legally blame an entity for something where they followed all the laws/regulations.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Maybe somebody that knows labor law like @bigbottom can chime in here but there are already laws that exist that make employers liable for unsafe work conditions. Under the laws that already exist, an employer that subjected its employee to unreasonably unsafe conditions is liable. The proposed bill is the exception, not the rule.
For example, there’s no law that says “employers can’t have anvils dropping from the ceiling of their factory in a random location each hour.” But if there were an employer that had such a factory, and an employee was injured as a result, the employee could sue (and win!) because of the unreasonably unsafe working conditions. The law doesn’t have to spell out every individual unreasonable condition that an employer might be liable for.
The way I read what Republicans are trying to do with COVID is the equivalent of saying “yeah, it might be be an unreasonable hazard, but sorry employee that just got smashed in the head with an anvil, you can’t be compensated for your injury.”
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I think gross negligence and misconduct cases should move forward.I see both sides of this issue and agree with both of you in a weird way
Employee calls and says i tested positive for covid. Owner says see you tomorrow or else! Three others catch it...
Employer tells employees not to come in if they feel sick. An employee doesnt tell anybody they are sick and still comes in to work. Three others catch it.
Dental hygenist works on covid positive guy. Catches it.
First example, yes. Next two, no way in my opinion.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
As written in the proposal, the first wouldn't be allowed...something would have to change and I agree with these scenarios outside the last one....I'd need more information like was it known and did the hygenist protest it but forced to do it anyway etc.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with both of them too. That’s why I wrote it was a complicated issue.I see both sides of this issue and agree with both of you in a weird way
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think it’s important to note that “we acted reasonably given the information we had” is already a defense under the law. We don’t need to pass anything to protect employers that acted responsibly — they already are protected by their actions.
I think it’s also important to note that truly frivolous lawsuits generally do not consume a lot of time or resources to defend. They typically can be disposed of at the motion to dismiss stage. Yes, there are obviously costs associated with litigation but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think COVID sufferers are more litigious than anybody else.
I think it’s also important to note that truly frivolous lawsuits generally do not consume a lot of time or resources to defend. They typically can be disposed of at the motion to dismiss stage. Yes, there are obviously costs associated with litigation but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think COVID sufferers are more litigious than anybody else.
The Commish
Footballguy
Right...and I agree. I haven't read the legislation, but I am struggling to understand why it's necessary if its NOT to give a blanket pass and if that's what it's there to do, then I am struggling to see why para is on board with it given he's said there are things that he thought people should be able to sue for.
I think we all agree that there are situations where the employee should be able to bring legal action.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Right. And that means this is a bad subject to make a contingency of a badly needed relief bill. The time it would take to come up with something reasonable that would address this concern is at odds with the need for expediency at this time. If McConnel is really concerned about protecting businesses from Covid related suits he should work that problem separate from the funding bill. That would be the reasonable approach if he were engaging in a good faith attempt to mitigate the financial difficulties posed by Covid.
The Commish
Footballguy
But we know the "if" here isn't legit. We know he's not engaged in good faith attempt...and I'm not confident Pelosi is either if I'm being completely honest.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
Laying the WHO aside for a moment: Airborne spread was known conclusively in early April, and the CDC at that time changed their guidance. Plenty of material in the FFA COVID thread from the first week or two of April about this. The CDC is not doing an about-face now.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The problem with covid compared to other things is how hard it is to prove and that there has been almost zero osha guidance. It is not comparable to other things.
An anvil falls and it isnt reasonable to argue that actually an ancil hit him at home and he walked in like that with it stuck in his skull.
Doctors arent even 100% sure yet how covid spreads, let alone juries or judges.
So authorities have given few standards, scientific guidance has been all over the map, and it is brand new. How the heck are you supposed to navigate that?
That is why I think only the most egregious behavior should be actionable.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Don't know if this has been posted here yet (apologies if so).
Things are getting uglier in Florida. Rebekah Jones, A data scientist who had been working on the Covid19 database for the state, who was fired the same day DeSantis decided to open things up again, had her home raided by police. They took her cell phone and all her computers. She had been continuing to publish the same Covid19 data she had been providing to the state on her own. Her cell phone contained records of calls with someone still working for the state who had been sending her info. The search warrant indicated law enforcement were searching and seizing because she was a suspect in a crack of the emergency worker advisory system. She denies responsibility for that crack. A Florida district judge resigned in protest over the search warrant.
Seems like some significant government coverup / overreach here.
Things are getting uglier in Florida. Rebekah Jones, A data scientist who had been working on the Covid19 database for the state, who was fired the same day DeSantis decided to open things up again, had her home raided by police. They took her cell phone and all her computers. She had been continuing to publish the same Covid19 data she had been providing to the state on her own. Her cell phone contained records of calls with someone still working for the state who had been sending her info. The search warrant indicated law enforcement were searching and seizing because she was a suspect in a crack of the emergency worker advisory system. She denies responsibility for that crack. A Florida district judge resigned in protest over the search warrant.
Seems like some significant government coverup / overreach here.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
How wouldnt the first be allowed? You told your employee to break quarantine. Pretty sure that would qualify as actionable under the proposal.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Sued, yes. But employees can sue employers for virtually anything right now. That doesn't guarantee success.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think we’re actually mostly in agreement about what we want. I think the current system, without this law, does a pretty good job of filtering out the truly egregious from the cases where employers acted reasonably or that are hard to prove. I think the proposed law would be contrary to those goals (if I’m understanding everything correctly - this is definitely an area where I welcome people to correct any misimpressions I have).
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
That sort of smoking gun almost never happens though. What is much more common is an overall culture that discourages people from calling in sick and deliberately looks the other way when employees come to work who are sick.
The Commish
Footballguy
As I said, I haven't read the letter of the proposal yet. It's rumored to be "blanket protection" which, to me, means that no lawsuits pertaining to COVID. Perhaps that is wrong. If it is, what does this new proposal provide outside the letter of the existing law that requires the proposal's existence in the first place. Seems like there's something additional that I am missing because those three scenarios you listed are already provided for in existing law...there has to be more to it doesn't there?
Shula-holic
Footballguy
OK, but I know personally I don't care what any politician says as far as what I do for my own health, be that Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, or AOC. I suggest that anyone who does needs to really reassess how they make decisions about their life.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I dont see how it could be rumored. I copied part of it. That clearly wasnt blanket protection.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
OK we disagree there, maybe we’re not exactly on the same page.
Anyway, in my opinion, if we want to encourage corporations to behave responsibly, we need to make them bear the financial costs of irresponsible behavior. Corporations want to make money for their shareholders. If we allow them to put safety at risk in exchange for financial profit, they’ll do it. If recklessly endangering their employees entails a huge financial risk, maybe they won’t.
rockaction
Footballguy
We generally see eye-to-eye, but I disagree with you here. I think that "public health" issues are actually rare and that this is one of them. In the case of a "public health issue," it would have been nice and more efficacious to everybody if it weren't politicized. I say this because politics have become an awful lot like religion to most people these days, and belief is enough for them to act upon rather than evidence.
It would have been nice if Trump and all his political supporters had decided to take necessary precautions, wear masks, etc. We'd be much better off. As it is, we're not even sure if a vaccine will be efficacious. We might need a cure for COVID at this point.
The Commish
Footballguy
Just started reading this bill.....and this is where it starts getting problematic IMO:
ETA: And then there's the part about limiting the loss of employment liability to 6 months and limiting responsibility to 90 days after the "national emergency" is deemed "over"....if I'm reading those parts correctly. I'd probably be ok with this second part if we knew the long term life effects of this thing, but we don't. I find it unreasonable to not allow recourse after X years should new information arise pointing to long term impacts of a virus someone caught because their boss was grossly negligent...even if it's 5 years down the road.
This seems to be punting to the states. I'm good with A/B...C is where it starts going off the rails. I'm just starting to read, so I suspect there's more of this nonsense in the bill. The, to me, reads as punting to the states, so if the state says you can't do anything, you can't do anything. So for example, in my state, you can have all the "mandates" you want but you can't punish people from violating them...this would filter to businesses. This is the kind of stuff I am absolutely not in favor of for obvious reasons.
ETA: And then there's the part about limiting the loss of employment liability to 6 months and limiting responsibility to 90 days after the "national emergency" is deemed "over"....if I'm reading those parts correctly. I'd probably be ok with this second part if we knew the long term life effects of this thing, but we don't. I find it unreasonable to not allow recourse after X years should new information arise pointing to long term impacts of a virus someone caught because their boss was grossly negligent...even if it's 5 years down the road.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
More than their words, I was referring to potential actions. Mask mandates and keeping certain businesses closed. I think if all of them had come out with this collectively and supported and endorsed it we would be in a much better place. Would you still have anti-mask folks, sure - would you have some running around without masks, sure. But the numbers would be much less.
I was in a gym last week - there was at least 200 people in the gym and 75% didn't have masks and were not social distancing. How difficult is it to mandate that? We want our kids to be able to continue their lives and do things - fine, but try and be somewhat smart about it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Jackstraw
Footballguy
I run a gym. We do a darn good job IMO and we have not had a case of spread internally that I am aware of. With that being said, I totally agree gyms should be closed.
But unilaterally closing when others aren't would be essentially giving up our customer base forever. We could make it doing a six week/eight week timeout if everybody else was closed too. But I can't shut it down unilaterally and expect to come back. It would be basically closing the doors forever.
That's why we need leadership at the state/federal level. All we need to do is get over one last hump and its downhill from there. Seems the powers that be have chose other people suffering. Hope they can live with themselves.
timschochet
Footballguy
Completely understood. You shouldn’t have to close unless others do as well. It needs to be mandated. It is in California.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It is obviously super difficult. It also naturally creates politicization.
If you close abc but leave def open then you will have created opportunities for alliances.
Favorites will also be played based on donors and lobbyists.
Once you accept that Americans would never go for a full shutdown. The rest falls into place.
The focus should always have been on mitigation in every business. That is the failure of all of this. That is the only even handed approach that would have been accepted.
Early on in this everybody used 1918 to point out that shutting things down worked. But everybody ignored all of the subsequent actions. The make inside outside campaigns. The countless outdoor winter activities. The modifications to healthcare.
It is sad how little we learned.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is a microcosm of the realities that exist when state level government officials punt decisions down to the local level and it's made even worse when they punt AND say the local levels can't punish people via fines etc for people not following the rules. It ALL lands on the businesses and they are put in a position to choose what's right or their livelihood. It's cowardice in spades IMO. It's disgusting.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I should have clarified this was a basketball gym. We were watching my son play basketball.timschochet said:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
So what about the part of my quote that you deleted?
Do you think xenophobia means "prejudice against people from other countries"?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
JAA
Footballguy
I've been thinking about this.
I think I understand why Trump and his political supporters don't take necessary precautions. The answer? Rudy.
Why would anyone close to President Trump, including himself, take any precautions? I mean, if any of them contract CV, like Rudy or POTUS, they get immediately transferred to one of the best hospitals in the world and immediately get medication and treatment not available to anyone else in the world. This being the case, why would any of them be afraid to contract COVID?
Makes me sad.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s being reported that Trump threatened the FDA chief with being fired if the vaccine isn’t approved today.
Can’t he see that this type of thing works against trust in the vaccine? So outrageous and awful.
Can’t he see that this type of thing works against trust in the vaccine? So outrageous and awful.
timschochet
Footballguy
And at the same time he retweeted someone on Fox Business giving him credit for the vaccine.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree with Trump on this one. The people in charge of the FDA need to be replaced, the agency needs to be abolished, and we should start over from scratch with a new agency that has a wiser tradeoff between Type I and Type II errors.
timschochet
Footballguy
Your argument is not his. He’s simply interfering at this point in order to take credit. In addition I understand you wanting to revamp the system, but that’s very different from threatening the FDC in order to achieve a certain result no matter how desirable.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I get that it's fun to get mad at mayors, governors, etc. for mismanaging the pandemic. We're all acclimated to criticizing elected officials, and it's our god-given right to do so. No problem at all with that on my end.
On the other hand, it's maddening to see so many otherwise intelligent people not just fail to hold career bureaucrats accountable for similar mismanagement, but actually to go to bat for these people. The FDA is the reason why we don't have a good testing regime in the US. The FDA is the reason why we don't have at-home tests. The FDA is the reason why people in the UK can be vaccinated but we can't. None of these things has anything to do with Trump or DeSantis or Cuomo or any other elected leaders. It's 100% due to an agency that has a long-standing culture of standing in the way of innovation. Other developed countries handle drug approvals better than the US does -- it's been that way for decades, and it's amazing that people haven't noticed that during the pandemic.
On the other hand, it's maddening to see so many otherwise intelligent people not just fail to hold career bureaucrats accountable for similar mismanagement, but actually to go to bat for these people. The FDA is the reason why we don't have a good testing regime in the US. The FDA is the reason why we don't have at-home tests. The FDA is the reason why people in the UK can be vaccinated but we can't. None of these things has anything to do with Trump or DeSantis or Cuomo or any other elected leaders. It's 100% due to an agency that has a long-standing culture of standing in the way of innovation. Other developed countries handle drug approvals better than the US does -- it's been that way for decades, and it's amazing that people haven't noticed that during the pandemic.
- Status
Similar threads
