General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMcConnell, McCarthy: Liability protections 'absolutely essential' for next coronavirus bill
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) signaled on Friday that they will not support a fifth coronavirus bill unless it provides liability protections for employers.
"As the nation continues fighting this pandemic and parts of our economy begin to emerge from shutdown, Senate and House Republicans are united in our demand that health care workers, small businesses, and other Americans on the front lines of this fight must receive strong protections from frivolous lawsuits," McConnell and McCarthy said in a joint statement.
"Senate and House Republicans agree these protections will be absolutely essential to future discussions surrounding recovery legislation," they added.
The demand that liability protections be included in the "phase four" bill, which would actually be the fifth piece of coronavirus legislation passed by Congress, comes as the business community is pressuring the White House and Congress to help shield them from lawsuits as companies shuttered by the coronavirus begin to reopen.
Legal experts say businesses could face a wide range of lawsuits related to the coronavirus, most likely from customers who were infected with the virus.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-mccarthy-liability-protections-absolutely-essential-for-next-coronavirus-bill/ar-BB13txFK?li=BBnb7Kz
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
msongs
(67,441 posts)OAITW r.2.0
(24,610 posts)It's not businesses fault that the government has decreed it safe to open and the motivation to do it is to limit the unemployment claims and kill a bunch of essential workers in the process.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Fuck businesses and their liability.
Don't want liability?
Don't open too soon!
JHB
(37,161 posts)No, they want a big, sloppy blanket of a giveaway, dispensing with any liability whatsoever.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)JCMach1
(27,572 posts)negligence...
We don't need to give immunity for this...
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)The drawback is that that would then indicate an anticipation of potential liability and that belies the stampede to reopening despite some expert consensus about the results at this juncture.
If they expect lawsuits are they implying that they will all be frivolous? Hence, the request for protection from liability is an indicator that employees, (and patrons?) will be placed in harms way knowingly and without responsible concern for that.
I mean, to me, that's like admitting the hazard and suggesting guilt.
REBOOT THE MACHINE!
stillcool
(32,626 posts)That's exactly what they're saying. Work without any protections, because your life has no value. Would that be covid-19 related, or would it be for any preventable illness, accident, or death?
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)employees, customers..and hold us all hostage in the meantime..phase four bill..
If I am not comfortable in an establishment, who has not taken ALL precautions to protect me, I do not need your services or product...
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice..oh, wait - I may not get another chance..
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)pecosbob
(7,543 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)It's acceptable for Republicans to send workers out there at the workers' own risk, but businesses must be protected at all costs from "frivolous" lawsuits (which you just knew McConnell was going to blame). Just so you know where you stand, wage slaves.
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)Shielding businesses from liability is the only way to give their call to re-open any teeth. However, businesses also need to be concerned about bad publicity and their long term reputation. Even if I can't sue "Business X," stories about deaths as a result their re-opening with insufficient safety protocols will have an effect.