|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah people don't seem to get that this is the new normal Yep, we are never going back to pre-covid times. Hopefully omi is the beginning of the slow decline in lethality.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Because it applies to tipped workers in restaurants et al on and closely related to federal land. It's not that relevant to the get back to business component, insofar as ski resorts that have to pay their employees $15/hour rather than peanuts would still like their employees working, but you were also (rightly) complaining that diner / tip culture in the US kinda sucks. This is good news on that front for the people it covers, and for the tea leaves on the Biden administration's various factions apparently not ALL being opposed to a $15 minimum wage increase. I'm sorry, and I'm not (intentionally) being rude here, but from my recollection of my years slinging turkey dinners was that I was not, by any definition of the word, a federal employee or contractor; from the release you linked, this is the only reference to tipping I could find: quote:Eliminates the tipped minimum wage for federal contract employees by 2024. Which, yeah, great. Fantastic. Good for tipped federal contract employees. Do we have any indication of about how many workers this would cover? I am, quite honestly, having trouble in understanding who, for example, would fall into this bunch: quote:care for our veterans, and ensure federal workers and military service members are provided with safe and nutritious food While it wouldn't be surprising to hear that the VA was paying its workers on a tip system, I'm having trouble coming up with many federally-subsidized restaurants/chains with workers that would be affected (but I'm not familiar with how base towns operate in regards to if they have any federal contracts or anything of the nature - the best I knew was the little family joint I was working for had an outstanding deal with Narragansett Electric to be open and have a house account for the linemen during storms)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You refusing to know things about how the government works, or what Fauci's position is, or what his communications have been, does not give you insight. Your pedantic nonsense doesn't change the fact he has been a central figure in the public health response for two administrations. Being a media adjunct professor does not give you insight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
Seems extremely convenient to me that the CDC would determine that the line for maximizing self-isolation compliance would align so neatly with the demands by corporate interests but maybe it's just a coincidence
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:12
|
|
Judakel posted:Your pedantic nonsense doesn't change the fact he has been a central figure in the public health response for two administrations. Being a media adjunct professor does not give you insight. It's not pedantry, it's basic effort for the forum that's supposed to be for informed discussion. Fauci's been head of NIAID since 1984. I wrote up like 500 words on his actual role and his communications status you're ignoring.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Your pedantic nonsense doesn't change the fact he has been a central figure in the public health response for two administrations. Being a media adjunct professor does not give you insight. Heck, it wouldn't be too out there to call him *the* central figure. Everyone knows who he is at this point which is more than can be said of say, the head of the CDC. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Seems extremely convenient to me that the CDC would determine that the line for maximizing self-isolation compliance would align so neatly with the demands by corporate interests but maybe it's just a coincidence 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The funny thing is the tweet of that interview on CNN that kicked off this discussion actually had Ranney talking about it. But apparently most people ITT didn’t even bother watching it Yes, which is why I think complaining about mischaracterizing statements is worthwhile. Most people won't watch every piece of media linked in this thread, so when people just blithely and falsely announce what is in them, it will largely go unchallenged. And it shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:it's 'circulation, airway, breathing' now, from 'Airway, breathing, circulation' previously I....I know that. Not sure which part of my post you're clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not pedantry, it's basic effort for the forum that's supposed to be for informed discussion. Fauci's been head of NIAID since 1984. I wrote up like 500 words on his actual role and his communications status you're ignoring. It is accurate to point out that Fauci influences the direction of public health during the pandemic. You can write 10,000 words and it doesn't change that fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not pedantry, it's basic effort for the forum that's supposed to be for informed discussion. Fauci's been head of NIAID since 1984. I wrote up like 500 words on his actual role and his communications status you're ignoring. Ok Judakel is a slacker who didn't do the reading on NIAID vs CDC and he deserves an F in this course, but is what Fauci said correct or not
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I'm sorry, and I'm not (intentionally) being rude here, but from my recollection of my years slinging turkey dinners was that I was not, by any definition of the word, a federal employee or contractor; from the release you linked, this is the only reference to tipping I could find: Obama signed an EO establishing minimum wages for some people Trump carved an exemption, "On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13838, titled “Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands.” " This Biden EO is closing that exemption, which is good. I don't have knowledge of how many that's covering, but if industry cared enough to lobby Trump for the exemption, it's not nobody https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/24/2021-25317/increasing-the-minimum-wage-for-federal-contractors
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Seems extremely convenient to me that the CDC would determine that the line for maximizing self-isolation compliance would align so neatly with the demands by corporate interests but maybe it's just a coincidence Look, until an
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Oh drat, the thing i linked wasn't the actual rule, just the press release about it. I'll get to it but I'm POSITIVE I read a layman facing article and also some legal nerdery about the tipped employee thing. I'll try to pull some or all of rule, article, and nerdery up later today. Iirc it's related to the clause about wage protections for outfitters and guides mentioned in the release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
it also flew under the radar for a bit, don't remember if it was even in the original executive order
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Look, until an Or people could just stop claiming stupid things/posting stupid tweets such as “the CDC admits it!!!”? Honestly, I think almost everyone ITT agrees that industries had an influence on the change in this guideline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Or people could just stop claiming stupid things/posting stupid tweets such as “the CDC admits it!!!”. Honestly, I think almost everyone ITT agrees that industries had an influence on the change in this guideline. This is pointlessly pontificating over sources, and it isn't granting you some special insight. Fauci is mediating the CDC's guidance and this is what is being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
So, not the CDC, and Fauci doing the same thing he's been doing since the pandemic started. Somehow, whenever you misrepresent something, it's "pedantry" to identify how you're doing it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Honestly, I think almost everyone ITT agrees that industries had an influence on the change in this guideline. Oh my God, he admit it!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You refusing to know things about how the government works, or what Fauci's position is, or what his communications have been, does not give you insight. You understanding and believing the kayfabe, and making beanplating distinctions like this, does not give you insight either. It’s possible to be ignorant, and also informed, at the same time. You can be mystified by knowledge, and as I have said several times in this thread, putting so much stock in press releases and official statements of policy does not make you smart, it makes you just a different kind of rube.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So, not the CDC, and Fauci doing the same thing he's been doing since the pandemic started. Somehow, whenever you misrepresent something, it's "pedantry" to identify how you're doing it. No one misrepresented anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
This is beginning to remind me a lot of the whole "the president would never poo poo his pants" "I poo poo MY PANTS ON PURPOSE" thing under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This is beginning to remind me a lot of the whole "the president would never poo poo his pants" "I poo poo MY PANTS ON PURPOSE" thing under Trump. it has been like this since the primary tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
In times like these, it is important to imitate the example of the prophet (a.s.) From Sahih Muslim: quote:Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Ruined were those who indulged in hair-splitting. He (the Holy Prophet) repeated this thrice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
^^^ Great post for this to be proximate toDiscendo Vox posted:Anthony Fauci is also not a CDC representative. Ravenfood posted:So I know you're not serious here (but someone will be along shortly to post it in seriousness) but I expect different things from someone who is part of the explicitly political government groups working on COVID and the CDC. I expect one to be making political calculations and the other to not be. The CDC clearly is making them and its upsetting but still somewhat different. lol that it happened before you even made the post. Some things are extremely predictable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't know that they have weighted economic or political factors more heavily- I'd need to actually dig into the evidence base for the guideline change, which as far as I can tell no one has done in the thread in favor of slamming twitter links. Reducing quarantine periods often has to do with backfire effects related to overall compliance and/or capacity factors; if you can get people to actually limit their exposure behavior during the period where there's actual risk, it can be better than a broader requirement that they breach. A big reason why people would breach the quarantine requirement would be employer pressure: employers would want to discourage people from getting tested, to cover up cases etc if positive tests require employees to be out for too long. A shorter quarantine would reduce incentives for employers to discourage testing. Although it's questionable whether the benefit is worth it, obviously having untested sick people ignore quarantine altogether to come to work and spread it will result in more cases, but so will telling still-contagious people to get back to work after a short quarantine. In a functional society you wouldn't have to make this Sophie's choice because you'd punish employers who covered up cases with fines so big it'd make it not worth it, but obviously we aren't going to inconvenience business owners so yeah just shorten the quarantine and send more potentially still contagious people back to work
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
tokyo reject posted:This is kind of where I’m at with it all. Our society has failed to handle COVID even remotely adequately from the beginning, and I don’t see that reversing course anytime soon. I live in a major American city with some of the tightest restrictions in place in the country, and most people still don’t really care. Sure, they put the mask on if they walk into a store or a Starbucks or something. But business or work meetings? Social settings? Ha. The predominant attitude I encounter on a daily basis is, “Meh, if you’re vaxxed gently caress it, you’re fine.” yeah the 'we should shut everything down now for covid' view isn't really a thing with either dems or the gop at this point. in practical terms: if we can't get stuff done that 60-80% of the country wants, I wouldn't hold out hope for something neither side really wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
The NYT has an article about yet another easily exploited tax dodge for billionaires, the Qualified Small Business Stock, or Q.S.B.S.:quote:This is the story of the incredible cloning tax break. I presume most people aren't familiar with this particular (purposeful) loophole but won't be terribly surprised to learn of it's existence, but I found a few things interesting: - it was created under Clinton (of course it was), and the authors of the article (who certainly don't seem in favour of it) present the idea as reasonable in principle, quoting only one professor who's willing to say that it was outrageous to begin with, considering that it exempts a huge amount of capital gains tax, which is already discounted compared to other income precisely to "encourage investment". Can we call this double taxation avoidance? - there are a few references to "hefty tax bills", again without mention of the low capital gains tax, and presented as if this would be some kind of unreasonable burden. - there's a brief mention that the Biden administration is trying to cut the benefit in half, but even if it happens (not much mention of whether it will; I'm guessing probably not), it would probably just motivate zillionaires to spread out the savings even more. An outright repeal must be out of the question. - I didn't see any mention of whether this helped fuel the dot-com boom or the current stock/tech bubble, but I would presume so? - the exemption's name literally ends in B.S. Is it a masterful troll?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yeah the 'we should shut everything down now for covid' view isn't really a thing with either dems or the gop at this point. in practical terms: if we can't get stuff done that 60-80% of the country wants, I wouldn't hold out hope for something neither side really wants. And I mean honestly, even if we had some kind of meaningful leadership or support for shutting it all down again I don’t really see a plurality, much less a majority of Americans calling for it. There’s plenty of pressure to open stuff up and ease restrictions from the “vote blue no matter who” crowd, it’s not just Republicans. Whoever said it upthread that society has largely relegated COVID to being a “poor person’s disease” was spot on. COVID is just going to go the way of getting cancer in America, you’re hosed without some kind of financial support structure. It’ll be like how people who supposedly support progressive values walk across the street to avoid a homeless person and then just don’t talk about it. Once vaccines came out I really couldn’t see this end game going any other way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
There's literally zero evidence the CDC reduced quarantine guidelines at the behest of business... https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1475893387098218514 Ignore that evidence!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Lengthy article on how the federal land minimum wage hikes would positively impact Utah workers, which turned me on to that particular bit in the rule: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/12/10/raft-guides-ski-lift/ summary law article which links in the first paragraph to a pdf of the actual rule which is 348 pages long: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-publishes-final-rule-implementing-president-biden-s-15-federal-contractor (if I'm reading this correctly the tipped minimum for relevant workers becomes 10 and a bit, not 15, but still) Can't find a better layman summary of the rule, but here's a basic one while it was in the review process: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-publishes-final-rule-implementing-president-biden-s-15-federal-contractor
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Lengthy article on how the federal land minimum wage hikes would positively impact Utah workers, which turned me on to that particular bit in the rule: Thanks for going back and digging into this. From https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-publishes-final-rule-implementing-president-biden-s-15-federal-contractor: quote:The $15 wage rate will apply to workers on four specific types of federal contracts that are performed in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain U.S. territories): Am I parsing this correctly in that if an entity (either for- or non-profit) is granted space to use in, let's say, Yellowstone National Park for an event, any caterers or workers contracted for that event would need to be paid the $10/hr minimum? Basically, "if your usage of federal land involves paid labor, you're going to pay this minimum to your laborers working on federal land."?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Here's a direct link to the final rule in the federal register. On a quick skim, section 23.280 appears to indicate that it starts at 10.50 and phases to $15 an hour Jan 1 2024. The coverage of food workers and contractors is discussed at this section. The below suggests it would not cover delivery of services to an event, depending on whether they're under the Service Contract Act: quote:For example, if a Federal agency contracts with an outside catering company to provide and deliver coffee for a conference, such a contract would not be considered a covered contract under section 8(a)(i)(D), although it would be a covered contract under section 8(a)(i)(B) if it is covered by the SCA. In addition, section 8(a)(i)(D) coverage only extends to contracts “related to offering services for [F]ederal employees, their dependents, or the general public.” Therefore, if a Federal agency contracts with a company to solely supply materials in connection with Federal property or lands (such as napkins or utensils for a concession stand), the Department would not consider the contract to be covered by section 8(a)(i)(D) because it is not a contract related to offering services. Likewise, because a license or permit to conduct a wedding on Federal property or lands generally would not relate to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public, but rather would only relate to offering services to the specific individual applicant(s), the Department would not consider such a contract covered by section 8(a)(i)(D). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Look, until an Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Thanks for going back and digging into this. From https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-publishes-final-rule-implementing-president-biden-s-15-federal-contractor: yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Thanks for going back and digging into this. From https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-publishes-final-rule-implementing-president-biden-s-15-federal-contractor: As Vox suggests I'm not up on event workers (must be open to the general public if they can pay, otherwise the event workers may be exempted), but it applies to things like restaurants on ski resorts. There's also something I don't entirely get where they're ending the practice of employers 'paying' employees through tip credits? oh lol yeah, they can deduct "a reasonable" tip level from non-tip minimum wage or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:As Vox suggests I'm not up on event workers (must be open to the general public if they can pay, otherwise the event workers may be exempted), but it applies to things like restaurants on ski resorts. There's also something I don't entirely get where they're ending the practice of employers 'paying' employees through tip credits? And I'm presuming, specifically, restaurants on the resorts' lands? Not, say, the Applebee's in downtown Colorado Springs outside the resort?  the democrats are going to get destroyed in 2022
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
the limitation is what can be done by executive order
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
There's a "related to" clause and the article I can't currently find went into some detail on who is and isn't covered, but I'd guess a restaurant primarily serving downtown Colorado Springs isn't and can't be covered by an executive order and rules change regarding federal land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:There's a "related to" clause and the article I can't currently find went into some detail on who is and isn't covered, but I'd guess a restaurant primarily serving downtown Colorado Springs isn't and can't be covered by an executive order and rules change regarding federal land. So it's not going to do much of anything at all for the millions employed by Olive Gardens and Outback Steakhouses that make up the large majority of service industry workers? The most generous interpretation of this is going to be the boilerplate shrug and "that's what we're confined to doing!" and the most critical will be "of course they're doing something for workers in federal contracts, they always take care of their own!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
I thought I'd seen this in passing when I was trying to puzzle out the tip credit thing. Issued about the same time (...and coming into effect today! score one for me posting a current events) was a somewhat complicated change to allowable tip credit calculations for tipped employees nationwide, under the DOL's authority to interpret the time and duty requirements. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dol-issues-final-rule-changing-flsa-tip-8426271/ Significant improvement for workers over Trump's rule change, at least some improvement to workers over the one in place under Obama, restaurants are whining about it being less clear than Trump's because it doesn't codify their ability to steal as much wages. The biggest clear benefit is that before customers are in the restaurant and after there are no customers in the restaurant, nothing any employee is doing is tip-related work and so their wages from that time cannot be robbed (in this way). although I bet a lot of employers are going to try to sneak by doing the old way, and it's such a boring and federal regulation that a lot of restaurant workers may be unaware
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:11
|
|