Trump proposals and what actually gets accomplished (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

I don’t think this fits into any current thread - it’s not an appointment or anything. Maybe a thread to keep track of his proposals and whether they are implemented?

 

[fooferdoggie]

I always love the word burdonsome. it translates it costing a little money so employers should not have to do it. yes lets not pay home health care workers 7.50 a hour. Cheaper is better that will help those conservative women who want to work and cant afford that. Just think of the quality of labor you will get if you pay them almsot nothing???

 

[SFIDC3]

Bolding mine

Isn’t that always what happens?
========================


NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 “obsolete” workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health care workers and people with disabilities to standards governing exposure to harmful substances.

If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines, and limit the government’s ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training.

The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump’s commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation.

“The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,” Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the “most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.”

Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm, with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact.

“People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,” Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union’s occupational safety and health director, said. “This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.”

The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one.
Here’s a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration:

No minimum wage for home health care workers

Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks.

Under one of the Labor Department’s proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 per hour — and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren’t covered by corresponding state laws…….

Protections for migrant farm workers

Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers.

Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers.

The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding.

“There’s a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it’s even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,” said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice…….

Adequate lighting for construction spaces

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn’t substantially reduce a significant risk.

OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its “general duty clause.”

The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea.

“There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there’s not adequate lighting,” Reindel said.

“It’s a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it’s one of those things where we need a standard, and it’s violated all the time.”……..

Trump's Labor Department proposes more than 60 rule changes in a push to deregulate workplaces

The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 “obsolete” workplace regulations adopted under previous presidential administrations.

apnews.com

These are the types of protections they start with but won't end with.....this is the blueprint to bring this country back to the industrial age.....if you get hurt on the job due to employer negligence, good luck!!!!!!!

 

[MT15]

This is a gift link to an article in The Atlantic discussing what a democratic president could do if he assumed Trump’s tactics and usurpation of power. Of course we would have to assume that SCOTUS is playing it straight with their rulings about presidential power, and wouldn’t immediately start ruling in opposition to what a democratic president would do. Thats a rather dubious assumption, IMO; they are partisan to the core and are providing services that have been paid for.

What a Democrat Could Do With Trump’s Power

America is entering an age of retributive governing cycles.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

This is a gift link to an article in The Atlantic discussing what a democratic president could do if he assumed Trump’s tactics and usurpation of power. Of course we would have to assume that SCOTUS is playing it straight with their rulings about presidential power, and wouldn’t immediately start ruling in opposition to what a democratic president would do. Thats a rather dubious assumption, IMO; they are partisan to the core and are providing services that have been paid for.

What a Democrat Could Do With Trump’s Power

America is entering an age of retributive governing cycles.

www.theatlantic.com

One of the things that concerns me is how brazen the 6 Republicans on the Supreme Court have been. They've issued rulings and justifications that they can't reverse without it being beyond obvious that they are corruptly enacting a partisan and tyrannical agenda.

That has me thinking that they don't expect to ever have a non-Republican president again. I mostly think it's just that they've reached absolute hubris, but part of me wonders if they are expecting a full tyrannical takeover before the election of 2028.

 

[bird]

One of the things that concerns me is how brazen the 6 Republicans on the Supreme Court have been. They've issued rulings and justifications that they can't reverse without it being beyond obvious that they are corruptly enacting a partisan and tyrannical agenda.

That has me thinking that they don't expect to ever have a non-Republican president again. I mostly think it's just that they've reached absolute hubris, but part of me wonders if they are expecting a full tyrannical takeover before the election of 2028.

I could see Alito and Thomas supporting such a potential scenario as never having a non-Republican president. Both are flat out corrupt. Coney Barrett would only support anything that relates to a complete abortion ban. Gorsuch and Beer Boy are not arbitrarily in support of such a thing but might possibly be persuaded. Same might apply to Roberts.

 

[MT15]

I could see Alito and Thomas supporting such a potential scenario as never having a non-Republican president. Both are flat out corrupt. Coney Barrett would only support anything that relates to a complete abortion ban. Gorsuch and Beer Boy are not arbitrarily in support of such a thing but might possibly be persuaded. Same might apply to Roberts.

You have a much better opinion of some of them than I do. I believe Roberts is just about as corrupt as the main two. Coney Barrett isn’t corrupted by money (yet) but she is a far right ideologue who will rule to her ideology no matter what. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are both the same.