Let restaurants 'opt out' of handwashing after toilet to reduce regulatory burden

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Apparently he has never known anyone with or had to deal with food-borne Hepatitis A ... or perhaps he does and just doesn't care.

My father caught it several years prior to his death. Because he already suffered from CLD, it almost killed him.

He was so thankful to the idiot at Wendy's who couldn't be bothered to wash his/her hands after using the restroom.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
One of the many ridiculous things about it is that he's saying a restaurant should be able to opt out of required hand washing, you know to cut down on unnecessary regulations, but at the same time, he's saying the restaurant that opts out and doesn't require hand washing would be required to inform their customers. It's insane. He's proposing replacing one reasonable regulation with a different, completely ridiculous regulation, and he's framing it as if it would decrease regulation. It's total nonsense. People are becoming so consumed by this fantasy idea of no rules "freedom" that they're going completely insane.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Well, you kind of missed the point where he says that if they did that, they would go out of business.
I missed the part where he illustrated the benefit, beyond a purely ideological satisfaction in taking a useful regulation off the books because the books themselves offend him to some degree. :idunno:

What burden is there in the illustration?

He wants the company that puts up a sign about compliance to put up a sign that they don't require the thing no longer mandated. A sign no one in their right mind would put up absent a mandate to (regulation).

Why is the shift from attempting to promote health to attempting to promote a principle that may undermine it better if the end result is two different signs, two different regulations and a guy who may or may not comply between shifts? Who benefits?

Who benefits? The corporation. Why? Because in the absence of the requirement there's no corporate liability and that goes to recovery of damages in a civil suit. So what seems underthought and goofy maybe isn't so much either.

Else, it's a very, very poor illustration of principle.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I often wonder
about regulations
that can't be enforced
or
just are not enforced
then
I see signs
consumption of alcoholic beverages forbidden
I ignore them
but
I understand why they are necessary
consuming alcoholic beverages is not a problem
if
you are not a problem
but
now they have a reason to get rid of you
if
you are a problem
and
you just happen to be consuming alcoholic beverages
 

elohiym

New member
He's proposing replacing one reasonable regulation with a different, completely ridiculous regulation, and he's framing it as if it would decrease regulation.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the story.

Read it again.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
That's not an accurate interpretation of the story.

Read it again.

"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 restrooms.' The market will take care of that."

You're expecting that the companies will put those signs up themselves? Sure. Companies have such a solid history of doing what's right for people.

Why do you think the regulation requiring that restaurant employees wash their hands after using the toilet came about? Anyone want to take a wild guess that it had something to to do with restaurants not requiring their employees to wash their hands after using the toilet?

I believe that the "no worries, the market will take care of that... we don't need no stinking' rules!" people are bananas.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, you kind of missed the point where he says that if they did that, they would go out of business.

Which would be a good thing for any of their would-be customers ...

And they could get sued if they didn't follow their advertising claims of cleanliness.

Depending on the health of the customer in question, being sued wouldn't compensate for death or permanent illness due the restaurant's failure to provide a healthy product to their consumers.
 

elohiym

New member
“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis recalled. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”

He is clearly discussing a scenario where the regulation remains but a business is allowed to opt out provided they disclose they are opting out. Furthermore, the discussion was about "certain regulations" unrelated to hand-washing. How did hand-washing enter the discussion?

Tillis said that at about that time, a Starbucks employee came out of one of the restrooms.

“Don’t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentlemen to wash his hands before he serves your food is important?” Tillis was asked by the person at his table.

I would have asked that person how he knows the employee washed his hands? That would have hinted at the ineffectuality of the regulation. The state doesn't even monitor compliance of their hand-washing regulations much more than ensuring sinks and sanitizing agents are present. All restaurants are essentially opting out of the regulations every day, multiple times a day, without the public being aware. "Go see if that employee washes his hands the second time when gets behind the counter," I would have told him.

“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.”

He's using the question to intentionally provide a ridiculous illustration, and he knows it's ridiculous. That's why, "The market will take care of that." The market couldn't even handle his illustration. :chuckle:
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I think we can all agree that this policy will never "catch" on. Why on God's green earth would any restaurant announce that they don't require hand washing after contact with genitalia
 

Jose Fly

New member
"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 restrooms.' The market will take care of that."

Dead and/or infected customers are just the free market solution to poor hygiene practices. :rolleyes:
 

elohiym

New member
It's common sense and decency to wash after using the restroom, anything less is insanely filthy.

It is also common sense and important for personal hygiene to wash before using the restroom as well as after. Our hands are typically filthy before entering the restroom, so one would be wise to wash his hands before touching his body.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Liberals think rules are the answer to everything.
Rules, laws, we all think they're important. The only question is which. Back in the OT people were forbidden to eat pork. That's essentially a health regulation from a moral foundation.

Some regulations are good for everyone. Hand washing by employees is one of those, which is why it was the absolute worst example he could have given. The public benefits from healthier eating establishments and corporations shield themselves from additional civil liability derived from wanton disregard and negligence.
 
Top