Jump to content

Poolflood

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Poolflood

  1. 6 hours ago, Your Mom said:

    i’m probably using the wrong terminology. All the plumbing and electrical that runs to the pool is in place and the deck is poured. They’ve been delivering equipment sporadically but it’s all still in boxes and not hooked up yet.  We are currently one month behind schedule they told me to expect.  

    If I had to guess you're getting Jandy.  I think they've been the farthest behind.

  2. On 1/28/2022 at 9:39 PM, TwiceHorn said:

    I'm sure it's been asked before, but I will ask again.  Looking at a house with a pool.  I assume a good home inspector examines the pool, any need for a separate inspection?
     

    And what does a pool cost to heat/maintain a month?  I'm seeing about $100 or so, is that realistic?

    Svc is going to be 200/month for a while and on inspection - what G Bang says is correct

    On 1/28/2022 at 11:04 PM, Gil Bang said:

    Realtor here. Hire a pool inspector specialist. Don’t let the regular home inspection guy do it.

     

    On 1/30/2022 at 11:39 AM, Your Mom said:

    Not much going on here on my front.  They poured my deck a few weeks ago.  Still waiting on equipment installation, deck coating, and plaster.  

    Question on the equipment:  I recall a lot of folks having their stuff freeze up and break last year during the snowpocalypse.  Other than leaving it running at a low speed, what could have been done to prevent that?  Do people ever build a little enclosure around it?  Is that practical or worthwhile?

    What BTW says.  If looks like power is going to be out for an extended period of time, turn off breakers and open every piece of equipment you possibly can... chlorinator, drain plugs, pump lids, air relief... open everything like it's S Austin's mom.  

    On 1/30/2022 at 12:10 PM, BTW said:

    I had a lengthy convo with my builder this week considering the predicted freeze this week. His suggestion was that if it’s going to be below freezing for a protracted length of time and there is decent fear of losing power (thus your pumps can’t run) then you should turn all your equipment breakers off and drain all the pumps and lines as able.

     

    On 1/30/2022 at 4:45 PM, Quagmire said:


    How long has your build been going? I’m 6 months in just got deck done and now just waiting on plaster. These fuckers love to blame Covid and supply chain shit .

    Ummm yeah.  Supply chain is a thing.  But it is getting dramatically better.  

    On 1/30/2022 at 5:30 PM, Your Mom said:

    I'm at 5 months.  Deck coating, equipment, and plaster to go.

    If you're at deck but don't have equipment yet.... that may not be a good sign.  What's the excuse for that?  5 months from dig?

  3. 21 minutes ago, Bookman said:

    They stop at 100 due to a cost/benefit analysis.

    Would seem to undercut the rationale.  I doubt there would be such a reason for asbestos handling/exposure. 

  4. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    How about if it's a rule implemented by employers and imposed on employees relating to work?

    Like, you can't come to work if you don't have a vaccine or a test?

    There may actually be some validity to the notion that the rule/mandate is overbroad, but that wasn't the basis of decision here.

    If it's a rule imposed on employment then that's a negotiation between those 2 parties.  

    If work-place in and of itself is the issue, why stop at 100 employees?  Does osha not have regulations re asbestos for ALL workplaces regardless of size?

  5. 2 hours ago, Captainant said:

    Just so you know, this is a typical trolling tactic. "Just asking questions" is a common misinformation tactic used to poison the well and derail a discussion.

    I don't think you're trolling, and please don't take this as an accusation, but you're unintentionally using some overloaded language

    Which is why I said that.  I don't have the time or energy to troll.  

  6. 3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, that's a stupid point.  "Taking the injection home with you" doesn't expose anyone to any harm.

     

    2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    That's not my assumption at all.  "Taking it home" is a non-starter.  Deleterious side effects would exist whether the employee were an 8/5 guy or a 24/7 guy (think oil rig).  The hours of employment shouldn't matter -- the safety on site is what matters.

    In other words, get a different job.  This rejection of the OSHA angle is stupid.  It's completely legitimate and falls well within OSHA's purview of ensuring safety on the job.

    Hearing protection can expose one to danger on the job, but OSHA still requires it.  If you can't hear the forklift "reverse" beep, you could get run over.  You still have to wear hearing protection in high-noise environments.  Nothing is foolproof.  Classic "don't let great be the enemy of good" stuff here.

    If it's a non-starter why did you start with it?  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 41 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, that's a stupid point.  "Taking the injection home with you" doesn't expose anyone to any harm.

    Your assumption is that no vaccine has had any deleterious effects on the vaccinated.   When, unless I'm incorrect,  every vaccine has had some measurable side effect, however minor on the population as a whole.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yeah, the "not unique to the workplace" doesn't really hold up as a useful rule.  It's an Anton Chigurh/Carson Wells rule.

    But if it's not unique to the workplace how does OSHA contro.  I get the WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW, but at what cost to federal overreach.   But lol I'm still bitching about wickard.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Here's where I think I disagree with the opinion.

    The majority claims that, because Covid is not unique to the workplace, the vaccine mandate is a "general health regulation" that OSHA lacks authority to issue.  There has to be some limitation connected to the workplace for OSHA regulations to be valid, which I think is hardly a controversial position.  And, as a general matter, I have no problem with the court reviewing agency actions.  That's a necessity, otherwise Congress could escape judicial review simply by delegating to an agency.

    The notion that Covid is not unique to the workplace is a clever way to claim that the regulation is not a workplace regulation.

    But the mandate is limited to the workplace.  It doesn't, as the majority tries to impute, apply to everyone.  It is, in fact, limited to about 1/4 of the US population:  those that work in OSHA-regulated workplaces.

    I think it's a positive that this is a per curiam opinion, because this reasoning therefore cannot be extended using this opinion.  And, given that it's an interlocutory case, not on the merits, it should be per curiam whether you agree with it or not.

    Look, when I say I'm just asking a question, I'm seriously asking a question.   If the OSHA mandate is within the scope of OSH act and not just a workaround,  why did they limit to companies with 100+ employees and not all employers?   Are there OSHA regulations that limit to employee size.  If it's an issue with all employees,  why the limitation? 

  10. 4 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

    THIS. Congress delegated the power, nothing in the mandate exceeds a reasonable reading of that delegation in light of unprecedented circumstances, and testing allows for a workaround. SCOTUS is going full-on disingenuous in its outcome-determinative analyses. Not saying the liberal wing doesn't do outcome-determinative reasoning, but this gutting of exec action as delegated by Congress is judicial activism that stands in conflict with the principles conservative judges claim to stand for. 

    In light of unprecedented circumstances Chuck cedes all to the administrative state.  But seriously  I appreciate opinion and will continue to ruminate. 

  11. So there was another plant fire in New Jersey.  Will stress an already broken supply chain.  

    Back in the day - couple years ago - 50# tabs wholesale cost me less than 79$/50#.  That same 50# bucket is north of $200.  It's going to go closer to $300.  

    Never been a fan of UV or Ozone but in this environment it may be worth it.

    Salt systems are going up.  Last I heard was 50% due to raw material cost increases.  Especially ruthenium.  

     

  12. 7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

    the conservative majority's "overreach" was that it hadn't done anything like this before.  of course, OSHA hasn't been around during anything like this, so of course it hasn't done anything like this.  so it's a bullshit argument.  on top of that, they mischaracterized the regulation from the word go, emphasizing the vaccine part and barely paying any attention to the fact that there's a choice to be had (testing).

    Agree to disagree.   As much as I loved Sotomayor's arguments in the recent abortion cases,  I found her arguments lacking and counter productive in the OSHA case.

  13. 26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Not always, no.  Some things do require a federal solution.  That is mostly true of all of the executive agencies.

    Not so much some of the other legislation, especially criminal.

    The FDA is a great example. A federal solution is pretty much required.  It's not something Congress is competent to handle, even if fully functional.

    Yet, it's still a hugely problematic agency.  And Congress leaves it alone for the most part, except occasionally defunding it or doing something pharma demands.

    I certainly want the federal government  to set parameters the states work within.  I'm not sure your reference to the FDA specifically,  but will infer it's beyond and above state control/regulation with respect to interstate commerce.   

    To me the OSHA mandate exceeded  it's authority AND the individual states have sufficient control/authority to take action.

  14. 21 hours ago, elfenix said:

    again, something wholly invented because the court doesn't like what the legislature did.  so it legislated from the bench.  speaking of keeping the unelected in their narrow lanes. 

    Or the court said the administrative state/executive over reached on established law. 

    21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Major questions?

    I think Congress should be somewhat more precise in its delegations.  And should probably revisit the delegating statutes from time to time, and maybe supply some statutory interpretations to agencies when they get a little froggy.

    But, not only can Congress not get shit done lately, they seem fundamentally incapable of fine-tuning any of their legislation.

    Agreed.   So can we not leave it up to the states if the federal is so broken?

    20 hours ago, DDD Dad said:


    Check your sarcasm meter.

    I was kidding.  I'm certainly not on here enough to keep tabs and my assumption is good faith.  Obviously I didn't come across correctly. 

  15. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I'm perfectly fine with agencies making up the rules.  But there needs to be court review sometimes; the rub is "how often is sometimes."

    Seems to me the major doctrine argument applies here.

  16. 4 hours ago, elfenix said:

    congress ain't experts in just about anything except maybe lawyering.  you don't want them writing rules. 

    Lol.   But they write the laws and turn over to bureaucrats.  Can we at least keep those unelected in their narrow lanes?

  17. 6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:


    The ones who won’t enact legislation?

    System is broken. We need a leader like Mussolini to get the trains to run on time.

    So DDD is pro fascism.  Noted. 

  18. 6 hours ago, elfenix said:

    law is calvinball to the conservatives on the court

    It's all calvinball.  But I don't think the agencies should be making up the rules.  That's the job of the worthless fucks that are elected.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...