6 ms·

He's not "forcing" anyone to come in IIRC. Workers can remain furloughed if they'd like. It's just that out in the real world, people need to work in order to s

by m0zg 6y ago

He's not "forcing" anyone to come in IIRC. Workers can remain furloughed if they'd like. It's just that out in the real world, people need to work in order to survive.

mikeyouse 6y ago
"Come in or lose your unemployment benefits" isn't a choice in any sense of the word. It's a shame we've done so poorly at managing this virus and have provided so little support for people who choose to prioritize their health.
- m0zg 6y ago
  Be that as it may, the fundamental fact of the situation is that money does not grow on trees and unemployment benefits don't really work if you have double digit percentage of the unemployed. It especially doesn't work if, by closing the factory, you're putting all of its supply chain out of work as well. Also, in order for there to be stuff, someone has to make stuff.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Sadly, this is a uniquely American failing. If you can't provide supports for people during a once-in-a-generation pandemic but have no problem taking out $20 Trillion in debt during normal times, things are seriously broken.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      I think you will soon discover that it's not a "uniquely American failing", but a fact of life that applies everywhere. I don't see how it's even up for debate that you can't stop the economy for six months and avoid severe repercussions, including deaths, for years to come, and that the government can't just will the stuff (food, goods) into existence with no work required from the population.
      - pianoben 6y ago
        It's a _tradeoff_. The thought is that the unmitigated death-toll of COVID-19 will be _worse_ for the economy (and by quite a lot) than sheltering in place for 6-12 months.
        m0zg 6y ago
        Who's going to make food?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      All rich countries can support people for a bit, and the US is doing that, although the mechanisms that it's using I agree are not exactly ideal. In the long term, you can't subvert the fundamental fact that the economy is what allows people to obtain goods and services. If a country cuts production in half for a year, it won't be able to provide the standard of living to which its citizens are accustomed, no matter what financial wizardry is involved.
- natch 6y ago
  Staying at home is not in any way prioritizing health, if, like most people, they themselves or any household members continue to go out to shop for food and other things. If anything, the clean factory environment should be safer than most stores and households.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    Most people don’t ride a crowded bus for hours to get food, nor do they shop for eight to ten hours daily.
    - natch 6y ago
      Most people don't ride buses to get to work at Tesla. There are shuttles from overflow parking lots but those lots have been empty the last few times I've been by while the rest of the lots are full. In other words people are driving to work. So that crowded bus for hours thing, not sure where that came from. Shopping takes less time that working, for sure, but that's missing the point, because the environment at a store is much dirtier. The Tesla plant is pretty clean and you don't have random people wandering in off the streets touching everything.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    This is asinine. They still have to go to stores and shop for food, going to a work at a factory is just one more place to get infected. And as demonstrated by the meat-packing plants, a much higher risk of infection than most everyday locations.
    - natch 6y ago
      Look at which two types of factories/plants you are equating, as if it's not apples to oranges. Tesla factory versus meat packing plant. And then look at what adjective you used at the start of your post. I could be forgiven for thinking your introductory sentence is meant to apply to the rest of your comment.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  It’s also not the choice that Tesla is forcing people to make, and I really don’t understand how such an easily debunked falsehood became so popular here. The CA EDD specifically covers this in their COVID-19 FAQ: > My employer furloughed me when its business closed due to the COVID-19 stay-at- home order. I am currently receiving regular UI benefits. My employer is reopening and has asked me to return to work. Will I lose my regular UI benefits if I refuse to return to work because I am afraid of contracting COVID-19 in the workplace? > An individual is disqualified for UI if they refuse to accept “suitable” employment when offered. Under California law, the EDD will consider whether the particular work is “suitable” in light of factors such as the degree of risk involved to the individual’s health and safety. For example, if your employer has complied with the state’s requirements for reopening, and any and all government safety regulations, you may not have good cause to refuse to return to work and could be disqualified from continuing to receive regular UI benefits for a designated period of time. Whether you lose your unemployment comes down entirely to whether the government of California deems the working conditions suitable, Tesla’s judgement “suitable” does not enter into the equation in any way whatsoever. Elsewhere in the FAQ they also specifically state that your own individual risk factors are taken into account when making this judgement. If you have an issue with people choosing between unemployment or unsafe working conditions, that issue lies exclusively with the state. https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/faqs.htm https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/faqs.htm
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    What difference is it if the state or the company makes the decision? In either case, it's "come in and risk exposure, or lose your unemployment benefits."
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      It makes a significant difference in who you are criticizing. Tesla’s offer for people to return to work from furlough does not place any burden at all on people to make a choice between receiving unemployment benefits, and their own personal safety. That judgement is made entirely by the government of California, because they are the only party that has any say in whether the working conditions on offer are suitable (taking into account individualized risk factors). There is no basis at all to criticize Tesla for this, and if you want to criticize anybody, the only party who could potentially be at fault is the state of California.
bardworx 6y ago
No horse in the race just sharing info: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1205866 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna12... Also, to be fair, their approach seems to be in accordance with the law as workers that do not return should be reported to unemployment boards, from my understanding. Not arguing if it’s right or wrong.
MilnerRoute 6y ago
"One employee said they were told by the company they wouldn't receive benefits if they didn't come back to work, and would be unable to apply for unemployment. Another said they were told their furlough status would change." https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-thank-you-note-tesla-workers-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-thank-you-note-tes...
- m0zg 6y ago
  You can always find "one employee" (of of ~10K in this case) to "say" just about anything.

by m0zg 6y ago

He's not "forcing" anyone to come in IIRC. Workers can remain furloughed if they'd like. It's just that out in the real world, people need to work in order to survive.

mikeyouse 6y ago

"Come in or lose your unemployment benefits" isn't a choice in any sense of the word. It's a shame we've done so poorly at managing this virus and have provided so little support for people who choose to prioritize their health.

m0zg 6y ago
Be that as it may, the fundamental fact of the situation is that money does not grow on trees and unemployment benefits don't really work if you have double digit percentage of the unemployed. It especially doesn't work if, by closing the factory, you're putting all of its supply chain out of work as well. Also, in order for there to be stuff, someone has to make stuff.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Sadly, this is a uniquely American failing. If you can't provide supports for people during a once-in-a-generation pandemic but have no problem taking out $20 Trillion in debt during normal times, things are seriously broken.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    I think you will soon discover that it's not a "uniquely American failing", but a fact of life that applies everywhere. I don't see how it's even up for debate that you can't stop the economy for six months and avoid severe repercussions, including deaths, for years to come, and that the government can't just will the stuff (food, goods) into existence with no work required from the population.
    - pianoben 6y ago
      It's a _tradeoff_. The thought is that the unmitigated death-toll of COVID-19 will be _worse_ for the economy (and by quite a lot) than sheltering in place for 6-12 months.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        Who's going to make food?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    All rich countries can support people for a bit, and the US is doing that, although the mechanisms that it's using I agree are not exactly ideal. In the long term, you can't subvert the fundamental fact that the economy is what allows people to obtain goods and services. If a country cuts production in half for a year, it won't be able to provide the standard of living to which its citizens are accustomed, no matter what financial wizardry is involved.
natch 6y ago
Staying at home is not in any way prioritizing health, if, like most people, they themselves or any household members continue to go out to shop for food and other things. If anything, the clean factory environment should be safer than most stores and households.
- new_realist 6y ago
  Most people don’t ride a crowded bus for hours to get food, nor do they shop for eight to ten hours daily.
  - natch 6y ago
    Most people don't ride buses to get to work at Tesla. There are shuttles from overflow parking lots but those lots have been empty the last few times I've been by while the rest of the lots are full. In other words people are driving to work. So that crowded bus for hours thing, not sure where that came from. Shopping takes less time that working, for sure, but that's missing the point, because the environment at a store is much dirtier. The Tesla plant is pretty clean and you don't have random people wandering in off the streets touching everything.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  This is asinine. They still have to go to stores and shop for food, going to a work at a factory is just one more place to get infected. And as demonstrated by the meat-packing plants, a much higher risk of infection than most everyday locations.
  - natch 6y ago
    Look at which two types of factories/plants you are equating, as if it's not apples to oranges. Tesla factory versus meat packing plant. And then look at what adjective you used at the start of your post. I could be forgiven for thinking your introductory sentence is meant to apply to the rest of your comment.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
It’s also not the choice that Tesla is forcing people to make, and I really don’t understand how such an easily debunked falsehood became so popular here. The CA EDD specifically covers this in their COVID-19 FAQ: > My employer furloughed me when its business closed due to the COVID-19 stay-at- home order. I am currently receiving regular UI benefits. My employer is reopening and has asked me to return to work. Will I lose my regular UI benefits if I refuse to return to work because I am afraid of contracting COVID-19 in the workplace? > An individual is disqualified for UI if they refuse to accept “suitable” employment when offered. Under California law, the EDD will consider whether the particular work is “suitable” in light of factors such as the degree of risk involved to the individual’s health and safety. For example, if your employer has complied with the state’s requirements for reopening, and any and all government safety regulations, you may not have good cause to refuse to return to work and could be disqualified from continuing to receive regular UI benefits for a designated period of time. Whether you lose your unemployment comes down entirely to whether the government of California deems the working conditions suitable, Tesla’s judgement “suitable” does not enter into the equation in any way whatsoever. Elsewhere in the FAQ they also specifically state that your own individual risk factors are taken into account when making this judgement. If you have an issue with people choosing between unemployment or unsafe working conditions, that issue lies exclusively with the state. https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/faqs.htm https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/faqs.htm
- pmiller2 6y ago
  What difference is it if the state or the company makes the decision? In either case, it's "come in and risk exposure, or lose your unemployment benefits."
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    It makes a significant difference in who you are criticizing. Tesla’s offer for people to return to work from furlough does not place any burden at all on people to make a choice between receiving unemployment benefits, and their own personal safety. That judgement is made entirely by the government of California, because they are the only party that has any say in whether the working conditions on offer are suitable (taking into account individualized risk factors). There is no basis at all to criticize Tesla for this, and if you want to criticize anybody, the only party who could potentially be at fault is the state of California.

bardworx 6y ago

No horse in the race just sharing info: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1205866 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna12... Also, to be fair, their approach seems to be in accordance with the law as workers that do not return should be reported to unemployment boards, from my understanding. Not arguing if it’s right or wrong.

MilnerRoute 6y ago

"One employee said they were told by the company they wouldn't receive benefits if they didn't come back to work, and would be unable to apply for unemployment. Another said they were told their furlough status would change." https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-thank-you-note-tesla-workers-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-thank-you-note-tes...

m0zg 6y ago
You can always find "one employee" (of of ~10K in this case) to "say" just about anything.