US PoliEra 2020 |OT4| Disaster Voltron

Sheepinator · Mar 14, 2020

IggyChooChoo said:
What do you mean other pages? Shouldn't it be defined in this, the full text of the bill and therefore pop up in a search for 500 or five hundred?

I mean this. "500" and "hundred" produced no relevant hits, and this stuff links to other docs.

(4) EMPLOYEE.—The term "employee" means an individual who is—
(A) (i) an employee, as defined in section 3(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)), who is not covered under subparagraph (E), including such an employee of the Library of Congress, except that a reference in such section to an employer shall be considered to be a reference to an employer described in clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (5)(A); or
(ii) an employee of the Government Accountability Office;
(B) a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16c(a));
(C) a covered employee, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301), other than an applicant for employment;
(D) a covered employee, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or
(E) a Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code.

SatelliteOfLove · Mar 14, 2020

cameron said:
Maggie Haberman @maggieNYT

The surgeon general just said from WH briefing podium, "no more finger-pointing or criticism" and called for "less stories looking at what happened in the past.

1:04 PM - Mar 14, 2020

Which means its goddamn mandated.

That mobbed-up shithole has a 6th sense for craven Dignity Wraiths dont he?

Iolo · Mar 14, 2020

It's a little odd for the NYT to publish an editorial with such a serious accusation without any accompanying citations. Show me the receipts.

Tamanon · Mar 14, 2020

I found the part where it ups the FMLA threshold from 1 or more to 50 or more, but nothing on "large employers". I'd wait for reporting instead of opinion.

Jupiter IV · Mar 14, 2020

Found this, not sure if it's relevant but it's the only hit for "exempt"

REGULATORY AUTHORITIES.—The Secretary of Labor shall have the authority to issue regulations for good cause under sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(A) of title 5, United States Code— ''(A) to exclude certain health care providers and emergency responders from the definition of eligible employee under section 110(a)(1)(A); and ''(B) to exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the requirements of section 102(a)(1)(F) when the imposition of such requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.

Edit: And, looks like they added this to modify some existing definition:

''(B) EMPLOYER THRESHOLD.—Section 101(4)(A)(i) shall be applied by substituting 'fewer than 500 employees' for '50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year'.

Soul Skater · Mar 14, 2020

The UK right now

KimonoNoNo · Mar 14, 2020

I

RastaMentality said:
This is interesting (and probably bad!) because they're basically expecting that people won't be able to change their behaviors for a long period of time. Which I assume is what's likely to happen in America as well lol. I just can't see Americans staying indoors for multiple weeks much less months.

Restaurants and bars were packed last night.

Fuck that noise, I look after my 80 year old father 24/7.
I could probably shrug off an infection (though I'm no spring chicken either), but if he get's it that'll be it for him.

IggyChooChoo · Mar 14, 2020

Sheepinator said:
I mean this. "500" and "hundred" produced no relevant hits, and this stuff links to other docs.

(4) EMPLOYEE.—The term "employee" means an individual who is—
(A) (i) an employee, as defined in section 3(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)), who is not covered under subparagraph (E), including such an employee of the Library of Congress, except that a reference in such section to an employer shall be considered to be a reference to an employer described in clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (5)(A); or
(ii) an employee of the Government Accountability Office;
(B) a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16c(a));
(C) a covered employee, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301), other than an applicant for employment;
(D) a covered employee, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or
(E) a Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code.

Ok thanks. I'm going to wait and see before I get worked up on this one.

patientzero · Mar 14, 2020

Soul Skater said:
The UK right now

Jupiter IV · Mar 14, 2020

And last thing I can find that seems related:

(B) COVERED EMPLOYER.— (i) IN GENERAL.—In subparagraph (A)(i)(I), the term ''covered employer''— (I) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce that— (aa) in the case of a private entity or individual, employs fewer than 500 employees; and (bb) in the case of a public agency or any other entity that is not a private entity or individual, employs 1 or more employees;

sangreal · Mar 14, 2020

Mnuchin said earlier they are fixing some technical issues in the bill on Monday (agreed /w Pelosi and McCarthy) so I wouldn't spend time trying to parse it so heavily

Ogodei · Mar 14, 2020

Jupiter IV said:
"the past"

These are things that are currently being screwed up.

I said that 15 minutes ago. Quit living in the past!

Deleted member 31817 · Mar 14, 2020

RastaMentality said:
why is this not being discussed more

It's hilarious how they're letting the biggest companies just cruise through this unscathed. Like are you fucking kidding me

Edit: nvm, could be false?

Slayven · Mar 14, 2020

Raw Story is doing a Susan Collins hit piece a day, why are they dragging this maverick?

Loudninja · Mar 14, 2020

Loudninja · Mar 14, 2020

Good job

Newlib · Mar 14, 2020

Jupiter IV said:
And last thing I can find that seems related:

(B) COVERED EMPLOYER.— (i) IN GENERAL.—In subparagraph (A)(i)(I), the term ''covered employer''— (I) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce that— (aa) in the case of a private entity or individual, employs fewer than 500 employees; and (bb) in the case of a public agency or any other entity that is not a private entity or individual, employs 1 or more employees;

That would be it. Definitions play through the entire bill

Midnight Jon · Mar 14, 2020

Newlib said:
That would be it. Definitions play through the entire bill

in which case you'd want to search for "covered employer" thru the rest of the text

Sheepinator · Mar 14, 2020

RastaMentality said:
This is interesting (and probably bad!) because they're basically expecting that people won't be able to change their behaviors for a long period of time. Which I assume is what's likely to happen in America as well lol. I just can't see Americans staying indoors for multiple weeks much less months.

Restaurants and bars were packed last night.

That plan is basically this.

KtotheRoc · Mar 14, 2020

Amibguous Cad · Mar 14, 2020

This still smells fishy. Congress routinely exempts small businesses from regulations they think would be onerous to comply with, but I've never heard of businesses *over* 500 employees being exempt from anything.

Arm Van Dam · Mar 14, 2020

RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel was tested for coronavirus today after not feeling well. She was at MAL for some of last weekend.

Iolo · Mar 14, 2020

KtotheRoc said:

Yeah, we know, it's been discussed for the last few pages. But everyone's source is this editorial.

Iolo · Mar 14, 2020

Arm Van Dam said:

Also nice how she could get a test on short notice but few else can.

Vestal · Mar 14, 2020

Arm Van Dam said:

Chickens are coming home to roost.

Chikor · Mar 14, 2020

Arm Van Dam said:

It's pretty much impossible to get tested in Seattle unless you've been to China, Italy or Iran, have been in contact with someone who has been tested positive or you're in the ICU.
Nursing home workers can't get tested, but somehow we have enough tests for politicians who don't feel well.
Neat.

Iolo · Mar 14, 2020

Testing for me but not for thee

Sheepinator · Mar 14, 2020

"We're testing everybody that we need to test." - Feb 26.

He's not wrong. The rich and the well connected get tests.

Loudninja · Mar 14, 2020

SquirrelSr · Mar 14, 2020

Midnight Jon said:
in which case you'd want to search for "covered employer" thru the rest of the text

I don't see "covered employer" anywhere else aside from definitions in Division F. Is there an updated version of the bill somewhere?

Rag · Mar 14, 2020

I was pretty relieved when my wife got home yesterday. She's still got a job, they are just down to two events a week over the next several weeks. She's used to feeding around 2,000 people a week, and it is going to drop down to around 40 until business picks up. She's going to file for unemployment to help her boss with payroll. It's such a massive relief knowing that I'm not about to be the sole breadwinner... now that that crisis has passed, I'm in full hypochondriac mode right now because my sinuses are all jammed up, I've got a runny nose and a cough. Gonna take it easy for a while and work from home as much as I can.

Chikor · Mar 14, 2020

Sheepinator said:
"We're testing everybody that we need to test." - Feb 26.

He's not wrong. The rich and the well connected get tests.

My personal favorite is "testing is pointless at this point, there is really no need for it".
Outside of course the rich and well connected, which are our scarcest, most important resource that we must protect at all cost.
How can we possibly function without the chair of the RNC?
The country will fall apart!

Trey · Mar 14, 2020

I read in a since deleted link full of other health and statistical information people share about coronavirus that the labs used to test these kids only have the capacity to test 1000 a day. Is that factual information?

IggyChooChoo · Mar 14, 2020

Midnight Jon said:
in which case you'd want to search for "covered employer" thru the rest of the text

I'm mainly concerned with division F (the part on sick leave), and it has this definition of covered employer:

B) COVERED EMPLOYER.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—In subparagraph (A)(i)(I), the term "covered employer"—

(I) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 1 or more employees;

Also this part just uses employer, not covered employer, and so has a more expansive definition:

(c) Additional Paid Sick Time For Public Health Emergency.—

(1) ADDITIONAL PAID SICK TIME.—On the date of a declaration of a public health emergency, an employer in the jurisdiction involved shall provide each employee of the employer in that jurisdiction with additional paid sick time, in addition to any amount of paid sick time accrued by the employee under subsection (a) (including paid leave referred to in subsection (a)(4)).

Definition of "employer" (which I do not understand, but which is a broader category than "covered employer):

(5) EMPLOYER.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term "employer" means a person who is—

(i) (I) a covered employer, as defined in subparagraph (B), who is not covered under subclause (V);

(II) an entity employing a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991;

(III) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995;

(IV) an employing office, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or

(V) an employing agency covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code; and

(ii) engaged in commerce (including government), or an industry or activity affecting commerce (including government), as defined in subparagraph (B)(iii).

Steel · Mar 14, 2020

Chikor said:
My personal favorite is "testing is pointless at this point, there is really no need for it".
How can we possibly function without the chair of the RNC?
The country will fall apart!

Chikor · Mar 14, 2020

Steel said:

DON'T HOLD HANDS LIKE THAT RONA GONNA GET YOU

edit: off topic as all hell, but some of the way people from other countries are depicted here have not aged amazingly well.

Deleted member 13101 · Mar 14, 2020

Rag said:
I was pretty relieved when my wife got home yesterday. She's still got a job, they are just down to two events a week over the next several weeks. She's used to feeding around 2,000 people a week, and it is going to drop down to around 40 until business picks up. She's going to file for unemployment to help her boss with payroll. It's such a massive relief knowing that I'm not about to be the sole breadwinner... now that that crisis has passed, I'm in full hypochondriac mode right now because my sinuses are all jammed up, I've got a runny nose and a cough. Gonna take it easy for a while and work from home as much as I can.

Thank you for the update, I feel better for you both.

Steel · Mar 14, 2020

Chikor said:
edit: off topic as all hell, but some of the way people from other countries are depicted here have not aged amazingly well.

I mean, you could also interpret it as that lawyer's imagination's own racist views of other countries, which adds another layer.

Phife Dawg · Mar 14, 2020

DinosaurusRex said:
so they closed all the schools in the district for two weeks. My wife is a teacher so it's not catastrophic she can stay home with the kids. Then the district is like no you still have to report to work even if you don't have students you are under contract. WTF how is this supposed to work?

Our Kindergarten (Germany) is closed until end of April, we are advised not to give the kid to the grandparents (makes sense). We are both supposed to work...

RastaMentality said:
This is interesting (and probably bad!) because they're basically expecting that people won't be able to change their behaviors for a long period of time. Which I assume is what's likely to happen in America as well lol. I just can't see Americans staying indoors for multiple weeks much less months.

Restaurants and bars were packed last night.

That's insane, 60-70% will probably get it over the course of the next 1-2 years, okay. But if those 70% get sick in a shorter time frame the healthcare system will implode.

Autodidact · Mar 14, 2020

Rag said:
I was pretty relieved when my wife got home yesterday. She's still got a job, they are just down to two events a week over the next several weeks. She's used to feeding around 2,000 people a week, and it is going to drop down to around 40 until business picks up. She's going to file for unemployment to help her boss with payroll. It's such a massive relief knowing that I'm not about to be the sole breadwinner... now that that crisis has passed, I'm in full hypochondriac mode right now because my sinuses are all jammed up, I've got a runny nose and a cough. Gonna take it easy for a while and work from home as much as I can.

If it makes you feel better, congestion and runny nose aren't typically symptoms of coronavirus. It's usually fever and a dry cough.

Chikor · Mar 14, 2020

Steel said:
I mean, you could also interpret it as that lawyer's imagination's own racist views of other countries, which adds another layer.

Do you interpret it that way?
Because I don't.

RastaMentality · Mar 14, 2020

I wish I could hear Warren explaining on MSNBC how the rich and well connected have access to tests and no one else does.

Steel · Mar 14, 2020

Chikor said:
Do you interpret that way?
Because I don't.

No, I'm sure it's a result of the prevalent stereotypes of the time, but the interpretation fits.

RastaMentality · Mar 14, 2020

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter

“this is what i mean when i say House Democrats are absolutely terrible at politics. the correct response to republican demands for a corporate giveaway is to reject the giveaway and dare the GOP to deny sick leave to American workers https://t.co/yUvSQJJQhN”

twitter.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter

“@jonfavs Dems presented a much stronger bill. GOP/WH held it hostage for ~two days and chipped it away. These negotiations were closed door so it is tough to say who demanded what, but Dems presented their original version so the tracked changes shows the result of GOP/WH negotiation.”

twitter.com

Midnight Jon · Mar 14, 2020

IggyChooChoo said:
I'm mainly concerned with division F (the part on sick leave), and it has this definition of covered employer:

B) COVERED EMPLOYER.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—In subparagraph (A)(i)(I), the term "covered employer"—

(I) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 1 or more employees;

Also this part just uses employer, not covered employer, and so has a more expansive definition:

(c) Additional Paid Sick Time For Public Health Emergency.—

(1) ADDITIONAL PAID SICK TIME.—On the date of a declaration of a public health emergency, an employer in the jurisdiction involved shall provide each employee of the employer in that jurisdiction with additional paid sick time, in addition to any amount of paid sick time accrued by the employee under subsection (a) (including paid leave referred to in subsection (a)(4)).

Definition of "employer" (which I do not understand, but which is a broader category than "covered employer):

(5) EMPLOYER.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term "employer" means a person who is—

(i) (I) a covered employer, as defined in subparagraph (B), who is not covered under subclause (V);

(II) an entity employing a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991;

(III) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995;

(IV) an employing office, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or

(V) an employing agency covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code; and

(ii) engaged in commerce (including government), or an industry or activity affecting commerce (including government), as defined in subparagraph (B)(iii).

so this bill is legalese layered on top of legalese. wonderful

RastaMentality · Mar 14, 2020

EDIT DP

Vena · Mar 14, 2020

I still see no one actually quoting a relevant part of the bill in this discussion. Everyone is just citing an oped.

Tamanon · Mar 14, 2020

I'm not sure the public would have much appetite for open warring over the bill which has so much good and needed stuff. Especially since we're literally in a crisis.

Plus, it can be added to later on with another vote.

IggyChooChoo · Mar 14, 2020

Midnight Jon said:
so this bill is legalese layered on top of legalese. wonderful

RastaMentality said:
b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter

“this is what i mean when i say House Democrats are absolutely terrible at politics. the correct response to republican demands for a corporate giveaway is to reject the giveaway and dare the GOP to deny sick leave to American workers https://t.co/yUvSQJJQhN”

twitter.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter

“@jonfavs Dems presented a much stronger bill. GOP/WH held it hostage for ~two days and chipped it away. These negotiations were closed door so it is tough to say who demanded what, but Dems presented their original version so the tracked changes shows the result of GOP/WH negotiation.”

twitter.com

I really think we should wait to get upset about this loophole until some lawyers weigh in or Pelosi confirms it.

Chikor · Mar 14, 2020

Steel said:
No, I'm sure it's a result of the prevalent stereotypes of the time, but the interpretation fits.

I'm not canceling the Simpsons or anything, but I feel like we don't have to try too hard to justify problematic things from 1993.

US PoliEra 2020 |OT4| Disaster Voltron

One Winged Slayer

Deleted member 31817

Never read a comic in his life

One Winged Slayer

self-requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Community Resettler