5 ms·

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.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Bullshit. People are being forced back to work because the state says it's safe. They're being told "you have to go back to work, regardless of whether you think it's safe, because we, the state, think it is." Again, how do you justify forcing that choice on someone? I think by now it's clear that you're simply trying to weasel out of answering that.
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
        I am not justifying it, I am asking you to prove that this is actually happening. Any person asked for any reason to return to a workplace that is either unsafe in general, or unsafe for them personally, does not jeopardize their entitlement to unemployment benefits in any way by refusing to return. The CA EDD specifically state this on their website. You are asserting that CA EDD is in fact not following this policy. You have not provided any actual concrete claims to support this. You have not described a single way in which the standards of the CA EDD are insufficient, or a single instance of their delinquency in following this policy. As far as I can tell, you believe the CA EDD to be delinquent as some sort of perfectly obvious self-evident truth. Which leads me to believe that you in fact do not have any specific criticism to offer at all, and that you have absolutely nothing to offer a conversation on this topic.
- Talanes 6y ago
  I can fault multiple entities. I don't trust the State of California to be making the right calls here, why should I? Tesla just demonstrated with the County of Alameda that they will flout laws and the authorities will let them get away with it. I blame Tesla for their part in this erosion of responsibility as well.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    There's many things you can fault Tesla for, but you can not fault them for forcing their employees to choose between unemployment benefits and unsafe working conditions. Because nothing Tesla has done, including their flouting of Alameda County laws, has put a single one of their employees in that position. The only party that determines whether Tesla are providing suitable working conditions is the CA EDD, Tesla making work available changes nothing.

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.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Bullshit. People are being forced back to work because the state says it's safe. They're being told "you have to go back to work, regardless of whether you think it's safe, because we, the state, think it is." Again, how do you justify forcing that choice on someone? I think by now it's clear that you're simply trying to weasel out of answering that.
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
        I am not justifying it, I am asking you to prove that this is actually happening. Any person asked for any reason to return to a workplace that is either unsafe in general, or unsafe for them personally, does not jeopardize their entitlement to unemployment benefits in any way by refusing to return. The CA EDD specifically state this on their website. You are asserting that CA EDD is in fact not following this policy. You have not provided any actual concrete claims to support this. You have not described a single way in which the standards of the CA EDD are insufficient, or a single instance of their delinquency in following this policy. As far as I can tell, you believe the CA EDD to be delinquent as some sort of perfectly obvious self-evident truth. Which leads me to believe that you in fact do not have any specific criticism to offer at all, and that you have absolutely nothing to offer a conversation on this topic.
Talanes 6y ago
I can fault multiple entities. I don't trust the State of California to be making the right calls here, why should I? Tesla just demonstrated with the County of Alameda that they will flout laws and the authorities will let them get away with it. I blame Tesla for their part in this erosion of responsibility as well.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  There's many things you can fault Tesla for, but you can not fault them for forcing their employees to choose between unemployment benefits and unsafe working conditions. Because nothing Tesla has done, including their flouting of Alameda County laws, has put a single one of their employees in that position. The only party that determines whether Tesla are providing suitable working conditions is the CA EDD, Tesla making work available changes nothing.