A Law Banning Flat Bed Sheets

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

California is just about bankrupt, which must mean that it’s time to pass a law outlawing flat sheets and short-handled feather dusters in hotels across the state.

Seriously.

This year alone, the Golden State will spend about $25 billion more than the $82 billion it expects to take in from taxes and fees. We have big problems in California, but instead of tackling issues that actually matter, the legislature has introduced a bill to ban flat sheets at the Hotel California.

Supporters of the bill argue it will reduce worker injuries by eliminating the need for workers to repetitively lift extremely heavy mattresses when making beds. They contend that flat sheets cause workers to strain their backs, shoulders and wrists, and are often responsible for repetitive motion injuries.

State Bill 432, sponsored by Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), also calls for the use of long-handled tools like mops and dusters so housekeepers do not have to get down on their hands and knees to clean bathroom floors.

The California Hotel and Lodging Association estimate that the switch would add $30 to $50 million in costs to already tight budgets. Spokesman Randi Knotts also adds that hotels already offer long-handled mops and brooms to their cleaning staffs, but that they aren’t used.

The government has no right to micromanage business. Hotels use flat sheets because they are cheaper, last longer, and are easier to launder, iron and store than fitted sheets with elastic. If tucking in sheets is too difficult a task for an employee whose job description includes tucking in sheets, they might be better suited finding employment elsewhere. With the unemployment rate in California hovering at over 12%, I’m sure someone would jump at the chance to earn an honest paycheck at an entry-level job.

The legislature has some serious work to do to get our financial house in order. Insisting that businesses raise prices to cover costs of newly mandated fitted sheets and creating a new Department of Sheet Enforcement to make sure hotels comply with the rule is not how to do it. The bureaucrats in Sacramento should concentrate on enticing businesses to grow and expand and create jobs in California, not how to protect the housekeeping staff from tucking in sheets.

link

[luckytxn 2,265]

Well the good thing about this bill is that Motels are not exactly a business that Texas can entice to come as so many have already.

[^_^ 5,021]

DeLeon bristles at the notion that his legislation is keeping lawmakers from closing the deficit in the state budget. As much as he’s concerned about seeing a recovery in the hotel industry, de Leon says he’s unconvinced that replacing flat sheets with fitted would pose an economic hardship.

“The hotel workers have the highest rate of musculoskeletal disorders and acute trauma of any other kind of hotel workers in the industry: torn rotator cuffs, plantar fascitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, broken backs,” said de Leon, whose mother worked as a housekeeper. “This sounds like the NFL or NBA but it’s not, it’s the women in the hotel industry. These 200-pound plush luxurious beds — the ‘sweet dreams’ or ‘heavenly beds,’ they’re neither sweet nor heavenly.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/05/hoteliers-say-flat-union-workers-say-fitted/

[Zero Sum 305]

Putting things into context sucks to some people I guess.

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

Putting things into context sucks to some people I guess.

Hoteliers, who say the mandate could cost the industry $20 million statewide, call it a ridiculous, unnecessary piece of legislation that is sidetracking politicians from far more pressing work like balancing the state budget.

but being unemployed may suck worse.

[Zero Sum 305]

but being unemployed may suck worse.

So would nuclear power plant employees having to work at lethal levels of radiation without the requirement of Rad suits because there would be no law/regulation demanding their use for safety.

[Vi-Jay 218]

So would nuclear power plant employees having to work at lethal levels of radiation without the requirement of Rad suits because there would be no law/regulation demanding their use for safety.

I wish they would install a battery operated switch triggered dispenser on the disposable ketchup bags they give at the drive thru.

That way I won't have the chance of suffering lip damage when I tear it open with my teeth while driving.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[luckytxn 2,265]

So would nuclear power plant employees having to work at lethal levels of radiation without the requirement of Rad suits because there would be no law/regulation demanding their use for safety.

If they can find workers stupid enough than why not. Not to mention the probability of being sued out of existence.

[Zero Sum 305]

I wish they would install a battery operated switch triggered dispenser on the disposable ketchup bags they give at the drive thru.

That way I won't have the chance of suffering lip damage when I tear it open with my teeth while driving.

Or you could pull over and not risk an accident.

If they can find workers stupid enough than why not. Not to mention the probability of being sued out of existence.

You can't sue while dead.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Or you could pull over and not risk an accident.

You can't sue while dead.

Next of kin can. BP found that out in Texas City.

[^_^ 5,021]

Can a sockpuppet sue?

[Zero Sum 305]

Next of kin can. BP found that out in Texas City.

Assuming the employees would be stupid (your presumptions here) to accept those work conditions known to be lethal... the lawsuit by next of kin would not see litigation.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you have a CHOICE in where you want to work.

Don't like the conditions? Guess what, You Are Replaceable!

It's that simple.

You don't need some commie ** writing legislation to protect your pathetic #######.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Assuming the employees would be stupid (your presumptions here) to accept those work conditions known to be lethal... the lawsuit by next of kin would not see litigation.

They knew and the Feds allowed BP to operate unsafely. Changes did come after the heavy court losses the next of kin received.

Edited May 20, 2011 by luckytxn

[Zero Sum 305]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you have a CHOICE in where you want to work.

Don't like the conditions? Guess what, You Are Replaceable!

It's that simple.

You don't need some commie ** writing legislation to protect your pathetic #######.

Calm down good spartan king.

Workers deserve at least the protection to keep them employed. There's quite a difference- and I think you know it, between unsafe conditions and workplace attitudes. Maybe that's the difference between fans of the Gilded age and fans of the Modern age. At some point people learn what's better.

They knew and the Feds allowed BP to operate unsafely. Changes did come after the heavy court losses the next of kin received.

True.