Work Reform

10137 readers

888 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

752

[Texas Tribune] “We are dying”: Houston workers protest new state law removing water break requirements (www.texastribune.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://archive.is/2CsfM

House Bill 2127, which takes effect on Sept. 1, will do away with local rules that require water breaks for construction workers. The cities of Austin and Dallas, for example, require 10-minute breaks every four hours. San Antonio officials had been considering a similar ordinance.

“We are human beings who need respect,” Martínez said. “We really need to be allowed to work without problems, without any barriers … Believe me, we are dying inside those buildings when they take away our water and our [break] time.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Individual votes don't count nearly as much as corporate cash.

This is the epitome of late stage capitalism in the US.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Your first sentence is absolutely accurate, but I think this specific case is more about sticking it to the libs in the cities that passed these laws, with the side benefit that most of these workers are minorities that the state reps don't like.