General Discussion

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,033 posts) Fri May 1, 2020, 03:39 PM May 2020

McConnell, 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.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

McConnell, McCarthy: Liability protections 'absolutely essential' for next coronavirus bill (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2020 OP

so businesses open under repub pressure, then repubs should be liable, correct? nt msongs May 2020 #1

What about political liability? OAITW r.2.0 May 2020 #2

Employee protections, post office funding, and monthly income are essential. SoonerPride May 2020 #3

...but not essential enough to incentivize best practices. JHB May 2020 #4

We CANNOT allow this to happen. We might as well just shoot workers outright. Squinch May 2020 #5

Hell no... liability is going to be extremely hard to prove anyway UNLESS there is clear cut JCMach1 May 2020 #6

The drawback... Newest Reality May 2020 #7

'admitting the hazard and suggesting guilt'.. stillcool May 2020 #8

Protection for businesses from lawsuits brought by asiliveandbreathe May 2020 #9

If Moscow Mitch wants it, then it can't be a good thing? Brainfodder May 2020 #10

No pasaran! pecosbob May 2020 #11

Protect bidness! Workers? Eh, not so much gratuitous May 2020 #12

Clearly, they've heard that many don't want to re-open despite their premature re-openings.. Blasphemer May 2020 #13

msongs

(67,417 posts)

1. so businesses open under repub pressure, then repubs should be liable, correct? nt

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:42 PM

May 2020

OAITW r.2.0

(24,504 posts)

2. What about political liability?

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:42 PM

May 2020

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)

3. Employee protections, post office funding, and monthly income are essential.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:43 PM

May 2020

Fuck businesses and their liability.

Don't want liability?

Don't open too soon!

JHB

(37,160 posts)

4. ...but not essential enough to incentivize best practices.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:44 PM

May 2020

No, they want a big, sloppy blanket of a giveaway, dispensing with any liability whatsoever.

Squinch

(50,955 posts)

5. We CANNOT allow this to happen. We might as well just shoot workers outright.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:45 PM

May 2020

JCMach1

(27,559 posts)

6. Hell no... liability is going to be extremely hard to prove anyway UNLESS there is clear cut

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:50 PM

May 2020

negligence...

We don't need to give immunity for this...

Newest Reality

(12,712 posts)

7. The drawback...

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 03:51 PM

May 2020

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)

8. 'admitting the hazard and suggesting guilt'..

Reply to Newest Reality (Reply #7)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:02 PM

May 2020

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)

9. Protection for businesses from lawsuits brought by

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:03 PM

May 2020

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)

10. If Moscow Mitch wants it, then it can't be a good thing?

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:04 PM

May 2020

pecosbob

(7,541 posts)

11. No pasaran!

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:20 PM

May 2020

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

12. Protect bidness! Workers? Eh, not so much

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:24 PM

May 2020

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)

13. Clearly, they've heard that many don't want to re-open despite their premature re-openings..

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri May 1, 2020, 04:24 PM

May 2020

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.

Reply to this discussion