Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsthe EnvironmentCities: PhoenixStarted 3mos agoActive 7 days ago

Should Phoenix mandate strict water and shade breaks for all outdoor workers?

Phoenix summers are becoming increasingly lethal, with 2023 seeing a record number of heat-associated deaths, many of whom were homeless or working outdoors. In response, the City Council passed a heat safety ordinance requiring employers to provide access to water, shade, and training. Proponents argue this is a baseline human right essential for survival in a warming climate. Opponents, particularly in the construction industry, argue that businesses already self-regulate to protect their workforce and that adding bureaucratic layers creates liability risks without actually improving safety.

+
Expand

9 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes, forcing unprotected work in 110-degree heat is inhumane torture.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes, stop greedy bosses from risking workers' lives for profit.

 @BDYVNS3 from Arizona  answered…7 days7D

Give them required breaks at the very least. 30 minutes for every 8 hours

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No, rigid mandates create compliance traps that bankrupt small local contractors.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No, businesses already protect their crews without City Hall micromanagement.

 @BDRBG6C  from Arizona  answered…3wks3W

Mandate yes but if the workers are fine let them work longer if they so please but they shouldnt expect extra pay if they work during mandated break hours.

 @BDRBG6C  from Arizona  answered…3wks3W

Yes 100% But if the workers want to keep working they can just dont expect extra pay., however, if it is a small business, the government would have to do all the funding for that extra stuff, if its a large one, they can pay for it themselves.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies