I don’t think those posts disprove what I said. Again, if I were a non-hand-washing employee, of course I’d wash my hands if I saw someone else in the bathroom. Otherwise, no, and that’s far more the common experience. I’d be much more worried about the small restaurants and those usually have single-use bathrooms where there is no chance of being caught at all.
You wouldn’t need the regulation in order to fire employees for not washing their hands after using the bathroom.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
You wouldn’t need the regulation in order to fire employees for not washing their hands after using the bathroom.
[/QUOTE]
Right…you just make it a company policy (which I’m pretty sure most food handling companies already do, and certainly would if we ever went down this path). Break the policy, get fired.
What we wouldn’t have are the inspections and such, presumably, so especially small mom and pop type places would probably become health risks (they are health risks today…I’m more concerned with how some restaurants handle raw chicken :eek:).
Read the cite:
As I said earlier, while it was initially a gotcha, he was so proud of his response that he brought it up in a public appearance, unprompted. So yes, he did make it part of his “ideological battleground.”
As for the not-a-Libertarian thing, that’s silly: modern Republicans have a heavy influence from Libertarian beliefs, especially when it comes to regulations on businesses, and this is clearly an argument borne of such influence.
OK.
Not really. His proposal isn’t a Libertarian proposal, but as noted by at least one poster, just another form of regulation.
If you routinely fail to wash your hands, and only wash when someone is in the bathroom with you, you’ll get caught. As a parent, I’ve developed a particular set of skills, one of which is knowing when my kid actually washes his hands. First, you observe the time taken between flush and open door. Second, you listen for the water running in the sink. Third, you listen for the deafening hand dryer.
Not washing your hands is way more obvious than you appreciate, and with laws that have teeth, the people who work with Mr. Dirtyhands every day have a incentive to keep his ass in line. Namely, their own jobs that are put at risk if he gets the restaurant shut down, or gets a unsatisfactory rating from the health department.
Yes. As I said earlier, it’s a terrible attempt at a Libertarian proposal. However, he’s clearly trying to talk about letting businesses opt out of regulations, which is a Libertarian idea. I don’t know how this would be controversial.
In case it’s not clear, I don’t think he’s a Libertarian. Despite my generally low opinion of Libertarianism, Tillis is too stupid to be a Libertarian. He’s trying and failing to makea Libertarian argument.
HOWEVER, he could easily have made it a legit Libertarian proposal, simply by removing the regulation about the sign. This would make the proposal far more internally consistent, inasmuch as it’d actually get rid of regulations, but would make the proposal far more harmful, inasmuch as at least Tillis’s proposal would have no actual effect (no restaurant on earth is going to opt for the “Our hands are poopy” sign), whereas the Libertarian proposal would pose genuine health risks and make it harder on restaurants as well.
I totally get what you’re saying, John. But I think the larger point is that sanitation regulations, however enforceable, create a culture of sanitation, both within and without the restaurant. It means that a sixteen year old kid starting his first gig at McDonald’s or Applebee’s hears the mantra from Day One. It means that management hears it and communicates it. It means that customers hear it and contribute to accountability.
Of course it’s not foolproof. Of course people will slack off. But the culture of handwashing means that a lot more people are going to pay a lot more attention to it, and that makes all of us safer.