5 ms·

I'm a foreigner so I don't fully understand this, but here's my take: 1) Tesla is restarting the factory against local rules saying they can't, because their c

I'm a foreigner so I don't fully understand this, but here's my take: 1) Tesla is restarting the factory against local rules saying they can't, because their competition is in different localities with their local rules saying they can, and Tesla is at a disadvantage. 2) It's basically illegal for the workers to go to work, but Tesla is still insisting they do this? 3) the local council has said they won't do enforcement. 4) If the staff refuse (a potentially unsafe) order from Tesla to return to their jobs (to break the law) the govt will stop paying unemployment? So, my understanding, the workers have to potentially risk their health and break the law or the govt won't pay them unemployment? Have I made a mistake? That's a messed up situation for those workers. Does Cali do anything like suspended sentences(you get sentenced to prison, but you don't have to go, but if you do another crime you have to go for both durations)? Would this impact workers in that situation?

kjksf 6y ago
There's no scenario in which the workers get charged with anything as they are not breaking any laws. If a health department finds that a restaurant is too dirty to operate, they don't jail the workers or the workers but fine or shutdown the restaurant. This is a similar kind of an order - the best county could do is to fine Tesla or shut them down.
- Dacod 6y ago
  It's really not a similar situation. Refusing to social distance is illegal as it puts other people's lives in danger but working for a dirty restaurant is not and is not analogous this is in any way.
  - natrik 6y ago
    Smoking and obesity put other people's lives in danger as well, whether it be due to second hand smoke or being a burden on the healthcare system and diverting resources. There have been countless discussions already about at risk groups and potential spread to them, QALY's, etc. What I want to get at is "social distancing" is arbitrary (6 feet?) and should not be forced. (I am unsure of your statement "Refusing to social distance is illegal...")
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      Illegal, as in not allowed and punishable by law in the state. But the state is willing to make some exceptions, making it legal for this.
    - wolfgke 6y ago
      > What I want to get at is "social distancing" is arbitrary (6 feet?) There do exist concrete studies on what distance makes sense; see for example https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08 https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in...
  - yrwwywtywsrty 6y ago
    To make his analogy more accurate, it would be the restaurant gets shutdown for being too dirty, at which point the owners continue to open and the workers continue making food there.
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      And then the owner is supposed to be slapped with a reasonable fine. Or jailed if they're continuing to defy the court order.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    However the same sanitary law can be applied if Tesla violates distancing. It's exactly like a restaurant without a sink to wash hands or gloves.
gamblor956 6y ago
You're not missing anything. The local county has already said they won't prosecute the workers for violating the health order since Elon Musk is making them choose between their health or their livelihoods. It's also unlikely the local county or state will prosecute Elon Musk since it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. However, it's very likely that Musk will be sued in civil court by one or more of his (ex) employees. There are a variety of different legal claims they could make, so it's hard to say what the outcome would be.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi... https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-businesses-cited-for-remaining-open-during-coronavirus-shutdown/ https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-bus... Alameda county could do the same.
  - masonic 6y ago
    The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a list of defendants but no reference to criminal charges; the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties).
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-allegedly-non-essential-businesses-operating-in-violation-of-emergency-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-al... Look up the criminal case summary using the case number: http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx
rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
You've missed some news: >If Tesla’s Prevention & Control Plan includes these updates, and the public health indicators remain stable or improve, we have agreed that Tesla can begin to augment their Minimum Basic Operations this week in preparation for possible reopening as soon as next week https://twitter.com/Dare2BWell/status/1260430367061876736 https://twitter.com/Dare2BWell/status/1260430367061876736
marvin 6y ago
You've missed that Tesla was already negotiating to open up one week from now. This is a 7-day advancement of a plan that was already likely to happen with complete legal support. We could still debate the moral wisdom of resuming production with significant additional safety procedures. Tesla is communicating that they've managed to do this successfully and safely at a similar factory in Shanghai. There's really three aspects to this: (1) The wisdom and timing of resuming normal activities with sufficient precautions (and if not now, then when?) (2) The specific legal problems of doing this after the state has allowed re-opening, but before the county has done so, and one week before it would otherwise be allowed (3) Musk's seemingly-irrational and spastic way of communicating his intents and opinions on Twitter The US debate on the quarantine measures is so polarized it's ridiculous. I personally disagree that all nonessential economic activity involving face-to-face contact should be shut down for >12 months until a vaccine might be ready. So it follows that a return to workplaces that can mostly be made safe must happen at some point. Should this happen when it's safe, or at some predetermined point in time? Who decides? How should companies behave if their competitors choose a specific strategy? I was the first person in my area to call out for social distancing, shutdowns and quarantines, even before any official response was in the cards, so please don't write me off as a right-wing parrot for pointing this out. The US response was atrocious, cost hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives already. But now it's the reality we have. Musk's apparent Twitter insanity is its own story. I think it's mostly relevant for the court of public opinion. He obviously has other motivations for his tweets than seeking the truth, but his plays are quite rational. He has a history of framing reality in ways that aren't compatible with the most objective interpretation. Calling it lying would generally be an overstatement, but some of it has been very dishonest. In this case, the most likely explanation is a strong wish to not lose the competitive position of Tesla, along with playing an existing political divide to build support with the right-voting population that would previously dismiss him and Tesla as liberal tree-huggers. This is actually a decent marketing strategy in the social media, Twitter-fuelled post-truth world. But as many other things Musk has done over the years, both in public and out of it, it's a balancing act on the edge of the abyss.
- graycrow 6y ago
  Well said.
chris11 6y ago
The workers aren't risking any criminal consequences. It's much more effective for CA to go after the company. The email is just trying to intimidate people into coming in or not filing for unemployment. The normal process is that an unemployed person files for unemployment and also reports earned income and rejected job offers. Both can negatively impact their unemployment claims. Unemployment actually costs companies money. Normally turning down the same job with the same pay you were laid off from would disqualify you from receiving unemployment. You'd need a great reason. A pandemic, and a shelter in place order are both great reasons. I'm assuming not showing up the factory would not disqualify you. But CA's unemployment system is overloaded right now. I really wouldn't want to be dealing with it, let alone have my claim be a special case.
natch 6y ago
"potentially unsafe" Thanks for putting in the word "potentially" because it recognizes an inescapable reality: the world is unsafe. We have to live in this world. That's just life. I would however take another step and say some people disagree about opening the factory being more unsafe than other options. There absolutely will be COVID cases at the factory. But there will also be cases outside the factory. It's really difficult to say wether opening is safer (because employees are in a pretty safe environment with respect to COVID, relative to their homes or other places they can travel to, and because they have health insurance) or whether it's more dangerous and somehow the factory will be a hot spot of viruses, even though it's a super dry place full of metal and sparks. Let's just recognize, on your point 4, not everyone agrees that keeping the factory closed is the safer option here.

kjksf 6y ago

There's no scenario in which the workers get charged with anything as they are not breaking any laws. If a health department finds that a restaurant is too dirty to operate, they don't jail the workers or the workers but fine or shutdown the restaurant. This is a similar kind of an order - the best county could do is to fine Tesla or shut them down.

Dacod 6y ago
It's really not a similar situation. Refusing to social distance is illegal as it puts other people's lives in danger but working for a dirty restaurant is not and is not analogous this is in any way.
- natrik 6y ago
  Smoking and obesity put other people's lives in danger as well, whether it be due to second hand smoke or being a burden on the healthcare system and diverting resources. There have been countless discussions already about at risk groups and potential spread to them, QALY's, etc. What I want to get at is "social distancing" is arbitrary (6 feet?) and should not be forced. (I am unsure of your statement "Refusing to social distance is illegal...")
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Illegal, as in not allowed and punishable by law in the state. But the state is willing to make some exceptions, making it legal for this.
  - wolfgke 6y ago
    > What I want to get at is "social distancing" is arbitrary (6 feet?) There do exist concrete studies on what distance makes sense; see for example https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08 https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in...
- yrwwywtywsrty 6y ago
  To make his analogy more accurate, it would be the restaurant gets shutdown for being too dirty, at which point the owners continue to open and the workers continue making food there.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    And then the owner is supposed to be slapped with a reasonable fine. Or jailed if they're continuing to defy the court order.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  However the same sanitary law can be applied if Tesla violates distancing. It's exactly like a restaurant without a sink to wash hands or gloves.

gamblor956 6y ago

You're not missing anything. The local county has already said they won't prosecute the workers for violating the health order since Elon Musk is making them choose between their health or their livelihoods. It's also unlikely the local county or state will prosecute Elon Musk since it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. However, it's very likely that Musk will be sued in civil court by one or more of his (ex) employees. There are a variety of different legal claims they could make, so it's hard to say what the outcome would be.

clouddrover 6y ago
> it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi... https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-businesses-cited-for-remaining-open-during-coronavirus-shutdown/ https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-bus... Alameda county could do the same.
- masonic 6y ago
  The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a list of defendants but no reference to criminal charges; the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties).
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-allegedly-non-essential-businesses-operating-in-violation-of-emergency-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-al... Look up the criminal case summary using the case number: http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago

You've missed some news: >If Tesla’s Prevention & Control Plan includes these updates, and the public health indicators remain stable or improve, we have agreed that Tesla can begin to augment their Minimum Basic Operations this week in preparation for possible reopening as soon as next week https://twitter.com/Dare2BWell/status/1260430367061876736 https://twitter.com/Dare2BWell/status/1260430367061876736

marvin 6y ago

You've missed that Tesla was already negotiating to open up one week from now. This is a 7-day advancement of a plan that was already likely to happen with complete legal support. We could still debate the moral wisdom of resuming production with significant additional safety procedures. Tesla is communicating that they've managed to do this successfully and safely at a similar factory in Shanghai. There's really three aspects to this: (1) The wisdom and timing of resuming normal activities with sufficient precautions (and if not now, then when?) (2) The specific legal problems of doing this after the state has allowed re-opening, but before the county has done so, and one week before it would otherwise be allowed (3) Musk's seemingly-irrational and spastic way of communicating his intents and opinions on Twitter The US debate on the quarantine measures is so polarized it's ridiculous. I personally disagree that all nonessential economic activity involving face-to-face contact should be shut down for >12 months until a vaccine might be ready. So it follows that a return to workplaces that can mostly be made safe must happen at some point. Should this happen when it's safe, or at some predetermined point in time? Who decides? How should companies behave if their competitors choose a specific strategy? I was the first person in my area to call out for social distancing, shutdowns and quarantines, even before any official response was in the cards, so please don't write me off as a right-wing parrot for pointing this out. The US response was atrocious, cost hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives already. But now it's the reality we have. Musk's apparent Twitter insanity is its own story. I think it's mostly relevant for the court of public opinion. He obviously has other motivations for his tweets than seeking the truth, but his plays are quite rational. He has a history of framing reality in ways that aren't compatible with the most objective interpretation. Calling it lying would generally be an overstatement, but some of it has been very dishonest. In this case, the most likely explanation is a strong wish to not lose the competitive position of Tesla, along with playing an existing political divide to build support with the right-voting population that would previously dismiss him and Tesla as liberal tree-huggers. This is actually a decent marketing strategy in the social media, Twitter-fuelled post-truth world. But as many other things Musk has done over the years, both in public and out of it, it's a balancing act on the edge of the abyss.

graycrow 6y ago
Well said.

chris11 6y ago

The workers aren't risking any criminal consequences. It's much more effective for CA to go after the company. The email is just trying to intimidate people into coming in or not filing for unemployment. The normal process is that an unemployed person files for unemployment and also reports earned income and rejected job offers. Both can negatively impact their unemployment claims. Unemployment actually costs companies money. Normally turning down the same job with the same pay you were laid off from would disqualify you from receiving unemployment. You'd need a great reason. A pandemic, and a shelter in place order are both great reasons. I'm assuming not showing up the factory would not disqualify you. But CA's unemployment system is overloaded right now. I really wouldn't want to be dealing with it, let alone have my claim be a special case.

natch 6y ago

"potentially unsafe" Thanks for putting in the word "potentially" because it recognizes an inescapable reality: the world is unsafe. We have to live in this world. That's just life. I would however take another step and say some people disagree about opening the factory being more unsafe than other options. There absolutely will be COVID cases at the factory. But there will also be cases outside the factory. It's really difficult to say wether opening is safer (because employees are in a pretty safe environment with respect to COVID, relative to their homes or other places they can travel to, and because they have health insurance) or whether it's more dangerous and somehow the factory will be a hot spot of viruses, even though it's a super dry place full of metal and sparks. Let's just recognize, on your point 4, not everyone agrees that keeping the factory closed is the safer option here.