3 ms·

Hey, I switched to working from home seamlessly. Many other people did too. There's plenty of at-home work. If I bought the assumption that getting COVID19 was

by wegs 6y ago

Hey, I switched to working from home seamlessly. Many other people did too. There's plenty of at-home work. If I bought the assumption that getting COVID19 was relatively safe for me, I'd gladly swap jobs to keep someone else safe, especially if it meant moving up in the world. An at-risk individual could do my job, and I'd take their in-person job. While I think there are better mechanisms, free markets could take care of swapping people around. If you're self-quarantining, and you have a better job than I do, I'll take your job. My job is now vacant for you. That's far from ideal -- you've just taken a pay cut -- but it's far better than mass unemployment. What we'd need from there would be much cheaper than the successive stimuli (e.g. support for at-risk low-income individuals: like a stimulus check, bigger, but only to people who need it). Now, to be willing to do this, I'd need to believe COVID19 is relatively safe for me (e.g. <1% odds of death _or significant long-term complications_). That's an assumption I don't buy. By looking at IFR/CFR numbers, we've ignored the much bigger question: how many people end up with permanent lung damage or other organ damage. Until we have a clear answer, I'm in lock-down mode unless I'm forced out.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
What you describe would work if jobs were so commoditized that everyone could jump between them without any kind of onboarding or training. As it is, a new employee almost always provides negative value to the company for the first weeks or months, depending on the job particulars. So what would happen in many (most?) places is companies preferring to force the existing employees to come to work, rather than let them swap the job with someone else.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Fortunately at will employment works both ways. I can't be forced to come to work. They of course can refuse to allow me to come back in a few years after this is over but if they want someone today they need to entice them somehow. If things are now risky than they may need to offer hazard pay. Note that a company giving a bad reference because you refuse the terms is likely to lose a lawsuit (in the US) since courts will find it reasonable for someone to refuse to come into work given the experts advice at this time. Thus the company will probably just confirm your dates of employment and refuse to say anything more about your performance while working there.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > Note that a company giving a bad reference because you refuse the terms is likely to lose a lawsuit (in the US) How often do these kinds of lawsuits happen anyway? I'm imagining that engaging in one is also a career-limiting move in itself, but maybe the situation is better? > Fortunately at will employment works both ways This pandemic is really turning the world upside down; things that were favoring one group of people suddenly turn around and favor the previously exploited one... > courts will find it reasonable for someone to refuse to come into work given the experts advice at this time One of the things I've noticed during this crisis is how big a responsibility rests on the shoulders of government and NGOs alike. I could describe the behavior of most of the market in February and March as a large responsibility deflection game. So many companies knew what should be done, and were ready to do it, but were openly waiting until relevant governments started issuing emergency rulings that gave them no other choice. For instance, late March I was still getting messages from a travel agency that boiled down to, "we understand that you think it's bad out there, and safety of everyone is paramount, but the government's foreign affairs bureau did not issue a ban on travel to Italy, so all is fine and everyone's going to Rome as scheduled". And yes, there was no travel ban issued; it was only "highly discouraged" for ~2 weeks before the country went into lockdown.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      You did pick a worse case example. When someone's livelihood depends on something it is hard for them to say anything else. My company was already making plans. But we were essential and expected to be essential from the start so our incentives were to keep as many employees as possible safe so they can come to work. In late February all traveled needed extra approval by mid March I was not allowed to eat in the lunch room (I could use a microwave and get back to my desk, factory workers in the building don't have a desk) those who didn't have a safe place to eat other than the lunchroom thus didn't have to be close to those who had one.
- wegs 6y ago
  We're in a pandemic economy. It's an economic upheaval. Many existing employees provide negative value until businesses adjust. If they want to survive, adjust they must. Whichever model we take (lockdown, soft lockdown, no lockdown, or something else entirely), our goal should be to structure economic supports to allow for that restructuring as quick, painless, and job-loss-free as possible. If we don't do that, things will play out exactly as you describe, with a painful adjustment period. If we do that, they can play out better. But play out they will. Businesses can't force people to stay. If the cost for me to pick an in-person job over an at-home one is $10,000, I'll quit my remote one as soon as I get a job offer $10,000 above my current salary. Businesses can't force me to stay. And vice-versa the other way. That's a free market. And the increased unemployment benefits right now provide some buffer to make those changes.

by wegs 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

What you describe would work if jobs were so commoditized that everyone could jump between them without any kind of onboarding or training. As it is, a new employee almost always provides negative value to the company for the first weeks or months, depending on the job particulars. So what would happen in many (most?) places is companies preferring to force the existing employees to come to work, rather than let them swap the job with someone else.

bluGill 6y ago
Fortunately at will employment works both ways. I can't be forced to come to work. They of course can refuse to allow me to come back in a few years after this is over but if they want someone today they need to entice them somehow. If things are now risky than they may need to offer hazard pay. Note that a company giving a bad reference because you refuse the terms is likely to lose a lawsuit (in the US) since courts will find it reasonable for someone to refuse to come into work given the experts advice at this time. Thus the company will probably just confirm your dates of employment and refuse to say anything more about your performance while working there.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Note that a company giving a bad reference because you refuse the terms is likely to lose a lawsuit (in the US) How often do these kinds of lawsuits happen anyway? I'm imagining that engaging in one is also a career-limiting move in itself, but maybe the situation is better? > Fortunately at will employment works both ways This pandemic is really turning the world upside down; things that were favoring one group of people suddenly turn around and favor the previously exploited one... > courts will find it reasonable for someone to refuse to come into work given the experts advice at this time One of the things I've noticed during this crisis is how big a responsibility rests on the shoulders of government and NGOs alike. I could describe the behavior of most of the market in February and March as a large responsibility deflection game. So many companies knew what should be done, and were ready to do it, but were openly waiting until relevant governments started issuing emergency rulings that gave them no other choice. For instance, late March I was still getting messages from a travel agency that boiled down to, "we understand that you think it's bad out there, and safety of everyone is paramount, but the government's foreign affairs bureau did not issue a ban on travel to Italy, so all is fine and everyone's going to Rome as scheduled". And yes, there was no travel ban issued; it was only "highly discouraged" for ~2 weeks before the country went into lockdown.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You did pick a worse case example. When someone's livelihood depends on something it is hard for them to say anything else. My company was already making plans. But we were essential and expected to be essential from the start so our incentives were to keep as many employees as possible safe so they can come to work. In late February all traveled needed extra approval by mid March I was not allowed to eat in the lunch room (I could use a microwave and get back to my desk, factory workers in the building don't have a desk) those who didn't have a safe place to eat other than the lunchroom thus didn't have to be close to those who had one.
wegs 6y ago
We're in a pandemic economy. It's an economic upheaval. Many existing employees provide negative value until businesses adjust. If they want to survive, adjust they must. Whichever model we take (lockdown, soft lockdown, no lockdown, or something else entirely), our goal should be to structure economic supports to allow for that restructuring as quick, painless, and job-loss-free as possible. If we don't do that, things will play out exactly as you describe, with a painful adjustment period. If we do that, they can play out better. But play out they will. Businesses can't force people to stay. If the cost for me to pick an in-person job over an at-home one is $10,000, I'll quit my remote one as soon as I get a job offer $10,000 above my current salary. Businesses can't force me to stay. And vice-versa the other way. That's a free market. And the increased unemployment benefits right now provide some buffer to make those changes.