<div>Once we’re done debating whether children should be vaccinated, we can move on to other pressing public health questions, such as whether eateries can force their employees to wash their hands after they use the bathroom.
 
At least one freshman U.S. senator thinks, “nah.” Because freedom.
 
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), at the end of an appearance Monday at the Bipartisan Policy Center, volunteered a story about “his bias when it comes to regulatory reform.”
 
Tillis said he was at a Starbucks in 2010 talking to a woman about regulations and where businesses should be allowed to opt out. His coffee companion challenged him, asking whether employees there should be required to wash their hands.
 
“As a matter of fact I think this is one where I think I can illustrate the point,” he recalled telling her. “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.” 
 

 

</div>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-t...d-washing/

---

;

;

I can agree that hand washing in restaurants is not a Federal issue.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

KFC secret spices reviled..

---

Talk about misconstruding an argument, he was making the argument that we over regulate simple matters. He said if companies don't require their employee's to wash their hands the free market would simply run them out of buisness. Imagine a sign in Starbucks, "We don't require employee's to wash hands" would you still eat there? I wouldn't! And don't tell me there wouldn't be a sign without regulation, the threat of a civil suit is why companies would display a sign. The reality is it's a no brainier of course restaurants are going to require employee's to wash their hands, regulating they put up a sign is a waste of resources.

---

Talk about misconstruding an argument, he was making the argument that we over regulate simple matters. He said if companies don't require their employee's to wash their hands the free market would simply run them out of buisness. Imagine a sign in Starbucks, "We don't require employee's to wash hands" would you still eat there? I wouldn't! And don't tell me there wouldn't be a sign without regulation, the threat of a civil suit is why companies would display a sign. The reality is it's a no brainier of course restaurants are going to require employee's to wash their hands, regulating they put up a sign is a waste of resources.

 

His own comments say “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom".
 
So all he is proposing is trading a requirement that employees wash their hands for a requirement the employer posts a sign.

---

 

<div>His own comments say “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom".
 
So all he is proposing is trading a requirement that employees wash their hands for a requirement the employer posts a sign.
 

</div>

 

He's making the argument the regulation is unnecessary. It's hyperbole the discussion was about vaccinations and his political adversary was trying to paint a picture that regulation is necessary for public health. His response which is being grossly misrepresented was that even in the most common of accepted regulations for public health the regulations put in place are unnecessary.

 

context matters

---

Talk about misconstruding an argument, he was making the argument that we over regulate simple matters. He said if companies don't require their employee's to wash their hands the free market would simply run them out of buisness. Imagine a sign in Starbucks, "We don't require employee's to wash hands" would you still eat there? I wouldn't! And don't tell me there wouldn't be a sign without regulation, the threat of a civil suit is why companies would display a sign. The reality is it's a no brainier of course restaurants are going to require employee's to wash their hands, regulating they put up a sign is a waste of resources.

Why would there be a Civil Suit?  Without the required signs, what proof would anyone have that they didn't require people to wash their hands?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why would there be a Civil Suit?  Without the required signs, what proof would anyone have that they didn't require people to wash their hands?  

 

Without a sign I as a consumer have a reasonable expectation my food is being handled safely. If it's later discovered after the fact that my food was not handled safely and there was no warning that my food was not handled safely I'd be within justification to file a civil suit against the establishment for negligence? I'm not a lawyer but my God people have sued for a lot less, it's not because the sign is or isn't there. There's a liability establishments have separate from any regulation.

 

Bottom line disgusting restaurants that are not clean go out of business, sign or no sign. The regulation changes nothing, it's unnecessary.

---

Without a sign I as a consumer have a reasonable expectation my food is being handled safely. If it's later discovered after the fact that my food was not handled safely and there was no warning that my food was not handled safely I'd be within justification to file a civil suit against the establishment for negligence? I'm not a lawyer but my God people have sued for a lot less, it's not because the sign is or isn't there. There's a liability establishments have separate from any regulation.

 

Bottom line disgusting restaurants that are not clean go out of business, sign or no sign. The regulation changes nothing, it's unnecessary.

 

I think this kind of approach will clog the courts with civil suits of all kinds.  And no one would find out about the lack of hand washing until a lot of people got sick, and even then they'd wouldn't necessarily know what caused it. 

 

I think I'd rather just require them to wash their hands.  It's a lot simpler that way.   For everyone. 

---

This looks like a mountain out of a mole hill.  Way to blow a simple point out of proportion.

---

I think this kind of approach will clog the courts with civil suits of all kinds.  And no one would find out about the lack of hand washing until a lot of people got sick, and even then they'd wouldn't necessarily know what caused it. 

 

I think I'd rather just require them to wash their hands.  It's a lot simpler that way.   For everyone. 

 

So you think that sign which "requires" employees to wash their hands actually changes weather or not the employees wash their hands?

---

His point was the absence of laws and regulations doesn't equate to different behavior. Restaurants require employees to wash their hands so they don't get there customers sick, so they can stay in business and continue to sell food, not because Washington makes them post a sign.

---

As someone who has actually had salmonella before... I'm all for hand washing regulation.

 

I think we need more in fact. Some cameras maybe.

---

Is it that easy to forget how things were back before we had regulations?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

He's making the argument the regulation is unnecessary. It's hyperbole the discussion was about vaccinations and his political adversary was trying to paint a picture that regulation is necessary for public health. His response which is being grossly misrepresented was that even in the most common of accepted regulations for public health the regulations put in place are unnecessary.

 

context matters

So you don't have a regulation requiring businesses to require their employees to wash their hands. Instead you have a different regulation requiring businesses to post signs that they don't enforce hand washing?  :blink:

---

So you don't have a regulation requiring businesses to require their employees to wash their hands. Instead you have a different regulation requiring businesses to post signs that they don't enforce hand washing? :blink:

No the threat of being used is enough to motivate some hypothetical company to post a sign they don't require employees to wash hands. The reality is no restaurant is going to say he cook don't bother washing your hands we could careless if customers get sick.

---

Just displays how society has become so dependent on big brother. Half of you are convinced if the almighty government didn't make restaurant post a sign about washing hands we'd suddenly have dirtier restaurants.

---

Just displays how society has become so dependent on big brother. Half of you are convinced if the almighty government didn't make restaurant post a sign about washing hands we'd suddenly have dirtier restaurants.

I guess health inspections are not necessary and no oversight should be in place at all because no restaurant in their right mind would try to hide the filth in their restaurant and keep it out of the line of sight of customers right?

---

I guess health inspections are not necessary and no oversight should be in place at all because no restaurant in their right mind would try to hide the filth in their restaurant and keep it out of the line of sight of customers right?

 

Who said anything about health inspections? I said the regulation mandating employee's wash their hands is over kill, it's impossible to enforce, and is an example of regulation just for the sake of regulation (that was the politicians point as well). He was actually making a much less radical point, that companies should be able to opt out of regulations provided they serve notice they've opted out. I'm saying the whole damn thing is useless and should be done away with.

---

Who said anything about health inspections? I said the regulation mandating employee's wash their hands is over kill, it's impossible to enforce, and is an example of regulation just for the sake of regulation (that was the politicians point as well). He was actually making a much less radical point, that companies should be able to opt out of regulations provided they serve notice they've opted out. I'm saying the whole damn thing is useless and should be done away with.

 

This.

 

Alot of fast-food restaurants are very lax when it comes to hand washing procedures as is. I recently walked into a restaurant the other day and the cashier came and took my order, handled cash, and went to the kitchen prep made my order with no gloves which is a violation.  I politely asked for my money back and notified the Florida Department of Health. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.