4 ms·

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 C

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.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Whom I criticize makes no difference. The choice is the same. Even if the state is the one defining "suitable," it's Tesla's choice to call them back in. The more important question is: how do you even justify forcing workers to make the choice?
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Tesla is either providing a safe working environment, or it is not. If it is then there is no need at all to justify requesting that people return to work. If the environment is not safe, or if it is unsafe for particular people, according to their own personal circumstances, then those people are not being forced to make that choice. They can continue to collect unemployment payments until such a time that the work environment becomes safe. If you dispute the purported safety of the Tesla work environment, then you have an issue with the state of California, not with Tesla.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Again, it matters not whether Tesla or the state is determining what is safe or not. The decision workers are faced with is the same. And, again, I ask you: how do you justify asking workers to make the choice between health and safety or having income to support their families? You literally ignored every point in my comment.
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Because literally nobody is being forced to make that choice. Your entire premise is false and completely debunked by information published by the CA EDD itself. The only way anybody could be forced into making that choice is if the standards established by the state were insufficient, or if they were delinquent in assessing people’s claims. If you believe that to be the case, present your evidence and direct your criticism accordingly.
        6y ago

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.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Whom I criticize makes no difference. The choice is the same. Even if the state is the one defining "suitable," it's Tesla's choice to call them back in. The more important question is: how do you even justify forcing workers to make the choice?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Tesla is either providing a safe working environment, or it is not. If it is then there is no need at all to justify requesting that people return to work. If the environment is not safe, or if it is unsafe for particular people, according to their own personal circumstances, then those people are not being forced to make that choice. They can continue to collect unemployment payments until such a time that the work environment becomes safe. If you dispute the purported safety of the Tesla work environment, then you have an issue with the state of California, not with Tesla.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Again, it matters not whether Tesla or the state is determining what is safe or not. The decision workers are faced with is the same. And, again, I ask you: how do you justify asking workers to make the choice between health and safety or having income to support their families? You literally ignored every point in my comment.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Because literally nobody is being forced to make that choice. Your entire premise is false and completely debunked by information published by the CA EDD itself. The only way anybody could be forced into making that choice is if the standards established by the state were insufficient, or if they were delinquent in assessing people’s claims. If you believe that to be the case, present your evidence and direct your criticism accordingly.
        6y ago