3 ms·

> Yes. I assume the workers are able to drink any time they want? What about on the other end (i.e., peeing)? "14-hour days and no bathroom breaks: Amazon's ov

> Yes. I assume the workers are able to drink any time they want? What about on the other end (i.e., peeing)? "14-hour days and no bathroom breaks: Amazon's overworked delivery drivers": * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/11/amazon-delivery-drivers-bathroom-breaks-unions https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/11/amazon-de... "Amazon strikes: Workers claim their toilet breaks are timed": * https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64384287 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64384287 I wouldn't put it past some employers preventing water intake if water 'outtake' is a documented problem.

rightbyte 3y ago
Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. I believe "reasonable breaks" is a worker community and employer problem rather than a government one. It depends so much on the situation that general rules get worthless. But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear What? Of course it will. If I have the option to go pee every 4 hours it's a heck of a lot better for me and my underwear than if I only have the option every 10 hours.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    I need to pee way more often if it is hot and do phyisical work and I am sweating and I drink enough. Like every hour or 2nd hour. Also you need like 10 min break to the hour. My point I am trying to make is that construction work with "minimum break" in a sunny Texas can't be functional at all. There has to be more breaks?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      But there aren't. Business owners would make less money if people had fewer breaks, so people have to work in sweltering heat and only pee every 4 hours. That's our reality. And the sad part is: if there were no rules for 4 hours, people wouldn't be allowed to pee every 4 hours.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. So to sum up. - Demanding a water break every four hours is useless because you need to drink every 15 minutes in this context - Demanding a pee break every four hours is useless because… everyone has tiny bladders, I guess? This little pitiful rule is not better than having to go whole shifts without being able to pee? I guess mandated lunch breaks are useless as well since you need to eat every hour at least under such strenuous conditions. Bah. > But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers. It certainly must be “loose enough”. Thou shalt never inconvenience corporate management.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    No my point I was trying to make is the opposite. The mandated break is so insufficient that there has to be more.

rightbyte 3y ago

Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. I believe "reasonable breaks" is a worker community and employer problem rather than a government one. It depends so much on the situation that general rules get worthless. But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers.

Timon3 3y ago
> Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear What? Of course it will. If I have the option to go pee every 4 hours it's a heck of a lot better for me and my underwear than if I only have the option every 10 hours.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I need to pee way more often if it is hot and do phyisical work and I am sweating and I drink enough. Like every hour or 2nd hour. Also you need like 10 min break to the hour. My point I am trying to make is that construction work with "minimum break" in a sunny Texas can't be functional at all. There has to be more breaks?
  - Timon3 3y ago
    But there aren't. Business owners would make less money if people had fewer breaks, so people have to work in sweltering heat and only pee every 4 hours. That's our reality. And the sad part is: if there were no rules for 4 hours, people wouldn't be allowed to pee every 4 hours.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. So to sum up. - Demanding a water break every four hours is useless because you need to drink every 15 minutes in this context - Demanding a pee break every four hours is useless because… everyone has tiny bladders, I guess? This little pitiful rule is not better than having to go whole shifts without being able to pee? I guess mandated lunch breaks are useless as well since you need to eat every hour at least under such strenuous conditions. Bah. > But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers. It certainly must be “loose enough”. Thou shalt never inconvenience corporate management.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  No my point I was trying to make is the opposite. The mandated break is so insufficient that there has to be more.