Republican Sen: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory bu

a reply to: Grimpachi

Not at all.

a reply to: thesaneone

OK just checking.


I love the comment from someone earlier "Just don't order the number 2" lol.

a reply to: NotMoose

And who will regulate or oversea the hanging of the signs, and ensure that businesses who do NOT require hand washing actually post a sign informing their customers of their decision?

The regulatory apparatus required to inspect for proper signage is functionally identical to the current regulatory apparatus.

So, he would get rid of regulations, then write a regulation, to tell customers "We have no government regulations". Got it.

Well I actually somewhat agree. As long as they clearly post that they do not wash their hands. If you don't like it don't eat there.

The only catch would that the restaurant must demonstrate there are alternatives (for example a restaurant on a road that's the only one for 20 miles can't opt out).

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: NotMoose

And who will regulate or oversea the hanging of the signs, and ensure that businesses who do NOT require hand washing actually post a sign informing their customers of their decision?

The regulatory apparatus required to inspect for proper signage is functionally identical to the current regulatory apparatus.

That would usually come about from sick customers.

I'm jumping in late on this thread but as someone who used to work in the hospitality industry (although on the periphery) I can tell you that this goes against what restauranteurs, caterers and the like drum into their employees over and over.

WASH YOUR HANDS!!

It is the number one way of stopping the spread of infections and bacteria.

Making hand washing optional in the food industry is a giant leap backward.

a reply to: jjkenobi

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I didn't see it mentioned, but does hand sanitizer count as washing your hands? Or does that fall outside the regulation and is not considered hand washing?

I've been meaning to get back to your post. Hand washing is always the first line of defense. Gets rid of visible dirt (like feces), and in restaurants gets rid of certain contaminants likely to be found there:

Feces (poop) from people or animals is an important source of germs like Salmonella, E. coli O157, and norovirus that cause diarrhea, and it can spread some respiratory infections like adenovirus and hand-foot-mouth disease. These kinds of germs can get onto hands after people use the toilet or change a diaper, but also in less obvious ways, like after handling raw meats that have invisible amounts of animal poop on them.

concise source

Hand sanitizer isn't meant to get rid of visible dirt, and I'm thinking feces/urine would be included, too, especially in restaurants:

Many studies show that hand sanitizers work well in clinical settings like hospitals, where hands come into contact with germs but generally are not heavily soiled or greasy. Some data also show that hand sanitizers may work well against certain types of germs on slightly soiled hands. However, hands may become very greasy or soiled in community settings, such as after people handle food, play sports, work in the garden, or go camping or fishing. When hands are heavily soiled or greasy, hand sanitizers may not work well. Handwashing with soap and water is recommended in such circumstances.

concise source

Hope this helps. Haven't even gotten into artificial and long nails

Long Nails and Nursing Don't Mix

I would say that hand sanitizers have a place, but in restaurants hand washing comes first. Also, HOW we wash our hands and use sanitizers our hands plays into its effectiveness. ....now back to topic of regulations....

HANDWASHING REGULATIONS ARE RUINING THIS COUNTRY! So much beauracracy is required to have employees wash their hands...so much beauracracy...

Well if we do away with rules and regulations like hand washing to help keep the citizenry from getting sick; perhaps we should do away with regulations concerning with food and milk inspections, cleanliness of restaurants in general and just let the good will of the producers and processes determine the safety of their products. We can trust them...right?

a reply to: olaru12

Do actually think people follow the rules and wash their hands just because a sign tells them to?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Do actually think people follow the rules and wash their hands just because a sign tells them to?

Of course not but I do think it make perfect sense to do so. Think of the children....

NOTICE: The Surgeon on Duty is Not Required to Wash Their Hands

a reply to: olaru12

It's the 21st century. Why are we having this conversation??

Too many regulations - too many rules? I suppose what he's really getting at is the effect 40 to 60 seconds of hand washing has on the bottom line. Regulations and rules only slow things down for business and the magical "market" fairy will sort everything out. Right.

Sure, there are plenty of needless rules and those really do need to be addressed, BUT a country is it's people, and anything that keeps it's people healthy, happy, and alive is generally a good rule. So we let up on the hand washing thinking the market will sort it out. Guess what gradually happens next? NO restaurants have the hand washing rule because it cuts into the bottom line and it's not REQUIRED anyway. Do you want one piece of candy or ALL of the candy? Everyone wants all of the candy and only rules keep this from happening.

Then where do we draw the line? Maintenance of busses and planes cut into the bottom line. Repairing hazards cuts into the bottom line. Those that think the "market" will take care of things - "Oh, I won't eat at those restaurants and only losers take the bus." No but maybe your co-worker eats at Typhoid Mary's and brings that joy into the office to you. Or will you be OK with the bus losing it's brakes and careening into your spiffy car? Do YOU really want to be one of the statistics that let the market figure out what it wants??

Sigh.

So he thinks that the government should mind it's own business about businesses. That's odd coming from someone that wants the government to interfere with gay people getting married.

In reading the full article, I can see what this politician is getting at. He is saying "let the free market decide." Obviously his example was more than a little flawed, but he got his point across.

Now here is my example. The following is a sign that should be placed on every fuel pump, fuel truck, and gas meter in the entire country:



I'm curious how the "free market" would respond to this revelation.


dex

The Daily Show did a bang up job on this last night too. Can't find the clip.

originally posted by: olaru12
www.rawstory.com...

SEn. Thom Tillis (R-NC) argued this week that restaurants should be able to “opt out” of health department regulations that require employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom.

Now there's some ammunition for the Dembs to use. It's as if the GOP wants to lose with that kind of rhetoric.

“We’re one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet, and I think if we go about it in a common sense way that that solves a lot of problems. It makes these other big problems that we’re talking about imminently more easy to solve.”

Being a business man myself; I'm no fan of
regulation but for God sake food servers/workers need to be forced to wash their hands after going potty.
and he goes on to say....

if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.

This belongs in the "you just can't make this **** up dept....." "Post a sign"......OMFG

Perhaps Sen Tillis would enjoy a little **** with his meal. Not me!!!!

Olaru12, sorry but this is an OP fail. You either did not read the article or failed to understand it.

What the article really said:

“I think it’s one I can illustrate the point,” Tillis told the women. “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

“That's probably one where every business that did that would go out of business" he added,
“But I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

Now your OP has mislead numerous readers, especially the Republican-haters, who will never bother to read the correction.

a reply to: AuranVector

What escapes some of us is the logic. He would remove one regulation, replace it with another regulation, saying "we are a business free of regulations". It is still government interference, but with no different results.

a reply to: olaru12

No the GOP wants their FREEDOM CANDIDATE to lose to make way for Bush who will be a hard sell. Both GOP and DEMs will be smearing Rand and any libertarian cansidaye until they feel its safe for Clinton and Bush again. Its bipartisan hate for libertarian s until then.