5 ms·

Tesla employees who don’t return to work could lose unemployment benefits

78 points by sharemywin 6y ago

jccooper 6y ago
Remove "Tesla" and the headline is exactly as true. That's just there for clickbait.
- hartator 6y ago
  Yep. Everything is allowed to re-open but because he talked about the lockdowns in a bad way, they want to make an example out of him.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  No one else is being forced to return to work (except essential workers and healthcare workers).
  - other_herbert 6y ago
    Sort of... If you are getting unemployment then your past employer notifies the state that you have been recalled (or something similar) they (the state) will deny your claims
  - objektif 6y ago
    When you know that you will get fired if you dont whats that called? Not forced at gun point but may be arm twisting?
  - pochamago 6y ago
    Sure, but the reason Tesla can really start is that legally they're essential and there are plenty of other auto manufacturers who are in the same boat. Musk just makes people crazy, so you might as well make the story about him.
- jameslevy 6y ago
  Would an article about immigrant workers at meat processing plants get to the HN frontpage?
- squnch 6y ago
  But Tesla is the only company choosing to illegally operate in the open.
ccorda 6y ago
This is going to apply to every employee at every company, regardless of whether they have a celebrity CEO or a clickbait friendly name. In California, EDD released guidelines today: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Californians-can-refuse-some-work-during-15267447.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Califo... "Even if your employer has complied with the state’s requirements for reopening, and any and all government safety regulations, you would have good cause to refuse to return to work if you are at greater personal risk due to higher risk factors as identified by the” California Department of Public Health. These factors include being older than 65, having a weakened immune system or having certain serious chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes."
- apatters 6y ago
  This seems pretty reasonable to me. Ultimately there are many reasons that lockdowns and blanket bans on assembly and commerce can't continue, aside from the collateral damage and the legal questions, anyone who thinks they're even enforceable beyond a few months lives in a fantasy land. Violations are growing by the day. If we try to just go back to normal, though, a lot of people are going to get sick and die. The solution has to be policies which seek to protect people from the virus with minimal collateral damage. This is no different from other spheres of public policy - for example we have speed limits on the road, and we have road deaths. We could lower all speed limits to 5mph and prevent all deaths, but the roads would become practically useless and society would grind to a halt. So we've selected limits that we feel are a reasonable compromise between safety and practicality. The vast majority of COVID-19 fatalities are people who are over 65 and/or have the mentioned chronic conditions. So it makes sense to do everything we can to protect these people. As an aside, since cars are pretty dangerous, I think we're very lucky that social media and the 24/7 news cycle didn't exist when they were invented. What with the panic these mediums generate, you have to wonder if cars would have gotten off the ground and become commonplace or if they would have just been panic banned.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    I think you're taking exactly the opposite lesson on cars there. They are incredibly dangerous, killing tens of thousands in the US alone each year, yet we're immune to the carnage because it's always been that way. They should have had that kind of scrutiny on them from the beginning.
asadhaider 6y ago
I remember an article[0] from mid-March saying Tesla employees could have up to two weeks paid time off if they didn't feel comfortable coming back after the shelter-in-place order was lifted. Is paid time off not a big thing in the US? I would have thought Tesla would have good employee benefits, or would it not really cover wanting to be off for preventative reasons if they're not currently sick. I work for a tech company in the UK and they pay up to a full year of full sick pay, then reduced for up to five years. We're covered under that if we're advised to stay at home due to having pre-existing medical conditions or advised to by a doctor, or if showing any symptoms and thus self-isolating. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-return-to-work-could-lose-unemployment-benefits/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-r...
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  In the US you often get 10-20 sick days per year, not more. Edit: This is what I have experienced and I meant this as a ridiculously low number. I had no idea that people would get even less.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    You mean 1-2? The vast majority in the US don’t get 10 days of vacation, never mind sick/personal days.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    The majority of hourly wage workers in the US do not get any paid sick days at all.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      That's not true in the states I've lived in and a few others I spot checked. I couldn't find a list with every state yet.
      - TylerE 6y ago
justaguy88 6y ago
Why isn't unemployment benefits simply conditioned on 'you dont work there anymore and you dont have a new job yet'. Why have the extra complexity?
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Unemployment benefits are available not only to people who lost their job, but also to furloughed people, i.e. people who are told by their employer "your services are not needed at this time, and by the way, we aren't able to pay you either, but when we'll need you back, we'll give you a call". Well, now these guys got the call. If they decide to stay at home, should the Government keep paying them unemployment benefits, or not? If yes, then it should be yes, if not, not, but this is Government's problem, not Tesla's problem.
- squnch 6y ago
  Unemployment isn’t available if you voluntarily leave your job. So the question is whether refusing to go to work when the factory is operating illegally is more like voluntarily quitting or more like being fired.
jsight 6y ago
From the article: > “Once you are called back, you will no longer be on furlough so if you choose not to work, it may impact your unemployment benefits as determined by your local government agency — and not by Tesla,” Workman wrote in the email. “We completely respect your decision and will support you, without any penalties from us.” I feel like this is going to be a common problem as things start to reopen. I hope the state devises a workable solution.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  I don't know the details of California's regulations, but if feasible, and if Tesla actually respects and supports these decisions, they should find a way to figure out who wants to be called back and who doesnt and only call back people that are willing and wanting to come back. I don't know if asking first violates any labor laws (I don't know why it would since that's a pretty pro-employee thing, but it might impact the budget and lots of states have very strange regulations like prop 56) but if it doesn't then that would be actually supporting workers.
z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
Awfully quiet here in the peanut gallery for such a post lol
whalesalad 6y ago
This is how jobs and work... work. Why is this newsworthy? Why is this even a headline? Pretty low, even for TC.
inamberclad 6y ago
THIS is why I don't like the idea of states reopening quickly. It puts people who may have elevated risks in a bind - go to work and risk your health or lose your benefits and risk your health.
dang 6y ago
A thread on this from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Which concluded that the title here is misleading. The statement from Tesla is just a legal-speak that they don't know. ...but the reality is that if the state isn't allowing you to report to work, then you can continue to file and collect unemployment.
  - dang 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
nikolay 6y ago
This is your fake idol - Elon Musk! The guy who was going to colonize Mars is behaving like an infant using recreational drugs for his teething and throwing tantrums... or more like tweetrums! Elon Musk is not a nice guy! He's never been! He's not hero material, as narcissists are no heroes! The weird part is he found a way to finally be liked by the far-right by acting like a freetard (a pun of "libtard"). He dethroned Trump among Muricans! He's their new idol now - a rebel against the sense of reason! Stop buying his cars! Tesla is not the only EV company, and glorifying and buying mostly Teslas, you're not doing the market a favor!

78 points by sharemywin 6y ago

jccooper 6y ago

Remove "Tesla" and the headline is exactly as true. That's just there for clickbait.

hartator 6y ago
Yep. Everything is allowed to re-open but because he talked about the lockdowns in a bad way, they want to make an example out of him.
8ytecoder 6y ago
No one else is being forced to return to work (except essential workers and healthcare workers).
- other_herbert 6y ago
  Sort of... If you are getting unemployment then your past employer notifies the state that you have been recalled (or something similar) they (the state) will deny your claims
- objektif 6y ago
  When you know that you will get fired if you dont whats that called? Not forced at gun point but may be arm twisting?
- pochamago 6y ago
  Sure, but the reason Tesla can really start is that legally they're essential and there are plenty of other auto manufacturers who are in the same boat. Musk just makes people crazy, so you might as well make the story about him.
jameslevy 6y ago
Would an article about immigrant workers at meat processing plants get to the HN frontpage?
squnch 6y ago
But Tesla is the only company choosing to illegally operate in the open.

ccorda 6y ago

This is going to apply to every employee at every company, regardless of whether they have a celebrity CEO or a clickbait friendly name. In California, EDD released guidelines today: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Californians-can-refuse-some-work-during-15267447.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Califo... "Even if your employer has complied with the state’s requirements for reopening, and any and all government safety regulations, you would have good cause to refuse to return to work if you are at greater personal risk due to higher risk factors as identified by the” California Department of Public Health. These factors include being older than 65, having a weakened immune system or having certain serious chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes."

apatters 6y ago
This seems pretty reasonable to me. Ultimately there are many reasons that lockdowns and blanket bans on assembly and commerce can't continue, aside from the collateral damage and the legal questions, anyone who thinks they're even enforceable beyond a few months lives in a fantasy land. Violations are growing by the day. If we try to just go back to normal, though, a lot of people are going to get sick and die. The solution has to be policies which seek to protect people from the virus with minimal collateral damage. This is no different from other spheres of public policy - for example we have speed limits on the road, and we have road deaths. We could lower all speed limits to 5mph and prevent all deaths, but the roads would become practically useless and society would grind to a halt. So we've selected limits that we feel are a reasonable compromise between safety and practicality. The vast majority of COVID-19 fatalities are people who are over 65 and/or have the mentioned chronic conditions. So it makes sense to do everything we can to protect these people. As an aside, since cars are pretty dangerous, I think we're very lucky that social media and the 24/7 news cycle didn't exist when they were invented. What with the panic these mediums generate, you have to wonder if cars would have gotten off the ground and become commonplace or if they would have just been panic banned.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  I think you're taking exactly the opposite lesson on cars there. They are incredibly dangerous, killing tens of thousands in the US alone each year, yet we're immune to the carnage because it's always been that way. They should have had that kind of scrutiny on them from the beginning.

asadhaider 6y ago

I remember an article[0] from mid-March saying Tesla employees could have up to two weeks paid time off if they didn't feel comfortable coming back after the shelter-in-place order was lifted. Is paid time off not a big thing in the US? I would have thought Tesla would have good employee benefits, or would it not really cover wanting to be off for preventative reasons if they're not currently sick. I work for a tech company in the UK and they pay up to a full year of full sick pay, then reduced for up to five years. We're covered under that if we're advised to stay at home due to having pre-existing medical conditions or advised to by a doctor, or if showing any symptoms and thus self-isolating. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-return-to-work-could-lose-unemployment-benefits/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-r...

Ididntdothis 6y ago
In the US you often get 10-20 sick days per year, not more. Edit: This is what I have experienced and I meant this as a ridiculously low number. I had no idea that people would get even less.
- TylerE 6y ago
  You mean 1-2? The vast majority in the US don’t get 10 days of vacation, never mind sick/personal days.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  The majority of hourly wage workers in the US do not get any paid sick days at all.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    That's not true in the states I've lived in and a few others I spot checked. I couldn't find a list with every state yet.
    - TylerE 6y ago

justaguy88 6y ago

Why isn't unemployment benefits simply conditioned on 'you dont work there anymore and you dont have a new job yet'. Why have the extra complexity?

credit_guy 6y ago
Unemployment benefits are available not only to people who lost their job, but also to furloughed people, i.e. people who are told by their employer "your services are not needed at this time, and by the way, we aren't able to pay you either, but when we'll need you back, we'll give you a call". Well, now these guys got the call. If they decide to stay at home, should the Government keep paying them unemployment benefits, or not? If yes, then it should be yes, if not, not, but this is Government's problem, not Tesla's problem.
squnch 6y ago
Unemployment isn’t available if you voluntarily leave your job. So the question is whether refusing to go to work when the factory is operating illegally is more like voluntarily quitting or more like being fired.

jsight 6y ago

From the article: > “Once you are called back, you will no longer be on furlough so if you choose not to work, it may impact your unemployment benefits as determined by your local government agency — and not by Tesla,” Workman wrote in the email. “We completely respect your decision and will support you, without any penalties from us.” I feel like this is going to be a common problem as things start to reopen. I hope the state devises a workable solution.

vikramkr 6y ago
I don't know the details of California's regulations, but if feasible, and if Tesla actually respects and supports these decisions, they should find a way to figure out who wants to be called back and who doesnt and only call back people that are willing and wanting to come back. I don't know if asking first violates any labor laws (I don't know why it would since that's a pretty pro-employee thing, but it might impact the budget and lots of states have very strange regulations like prop 56) but if it doesn't then that would be actually supporting workers.

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago

Awfully quiet here in the peanut gallery for such a post lol

whalesalad 6y ago

This is how jobs and work... work. Why is this newsworthy? Why is this even a headline? Pretty low, even for TC.

inamberclad 6y ago

THIS is why I don't like the idea of states reopening quickly. It puts people who may have elevated risks in a bind - go to work and risk your health or lose your benefits and risk your health.

dang 6y ago

A thread on this from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794

koheripbal 6y ago
Which concluded that the title here is misleading. The statement from Tesla is just a legal-speak that they don't know. ...but the reality is that if the state isn't allowing you to report to work, then you can continue to file and collect unemployment.
- dang 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification.

nikolay 6y ago

This is your fake idol - Elon Musk! The guy who was going to colonize Mars is behaving like an infant using recreational drugs for his teething and throwing tantrums... or more like tweetrums! Elon Musk is not a nice guy! He's never been! He's not hero material, as narcissists are no heroes! The weird part is he found a way to finally be liked by the far-right by acting like a freetard (a pun of "libtard"). He dethroned Trump among Muricans! He's their new idol now - a rebel against the sense of reason! Stop buying his cars! Tesla is not the only EV company, and glorifying and buying mostly Teslas, you're not doing the market a favor!