Reading Jerry Cornfield’s Monday article, “For many, bathroom can’t wait,” I felt compassion for those who must endure the embarrassment of “begging to use a bathroom.” Having been denied access to employee-only restrooms, I can empathize. I nodded as I saw that the vote was 90-7 in favor of the bill. However, as I read Cornfield’s description of the details of the bill, I found myself wondering how 90 out of 97 representatives could have thought that this was a good idea.
Just how many stores fit the category of having no public restroom but more than three employees working? I can’t imagine that this bill will affect one bit the tiny gas station (so small it doesn’t have a public restroom) with the single, pimply-faced employee that I had to beg to let me use the restroom. Also, apparently, a new form must be created (at taxpayer expense in tough economic times), to be signed by a doctor. I wonder how much less embarrassing it must be to hold a slip of paper and demand access to a bathroom, than to simply rely on the compassion of the individual behind the counter. All of these reservations about this bill passed through my mind as read this article, yet I have to wonder why no dissenting opinion was sought from those, such as Mike Hope, who may actually have thought before they cast a vote for government-mandated “compassion.”
Michael Newton
Lake Stevens
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
