4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        This here is what is insufficient: > 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." Now, how do you justify the state telling people what is and is not safe for them to return to work?
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
        For starters there's no evidence that people claiming their working environment is unsafe are actually being refused unemployment benefits by the state. But the state does have the power to do that, so let's operate on the hypothetical scenario that this has occurred. Your question is actually "how does the state justify setting minimum safety standards for work places?", because your criticism applies to any and all scenarios where they choose to do so. Most people would agree that minimum safety standards should be defined, and that the state is usually the best party to handle that. But what if people think the state hasn't done a good enough job? Well people are entitled to think anything they like, for any reason at all. Some people think that the state is delinquent in allowing for coronavirus-causing 5G cell towers to be built. Just because somebody thinks something, doesn't mean it has any merit. For somebody's thoughts to be taken seriously, they are usually expected to provide some sort of rational basis for having them. So far you have provided no basis at all, rational or otherwise, for believing that the CA EDD has failed to make reasonable judgements about workplace safety in relation to COVID-19. If you're not capable of doing that, then your assertion that people are being forced to choose between receiving unemployment benefits and their own personal safety, is completely without merit.

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.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      This here is what is insufficient: > 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." Now, how do you justify the state telling people what is and is not safe for them to return to work?
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        For starters there's no evidence that people claiming their working environment is unsafe are actually being refused unemployment benefits by the state. But the state does have the power to do that, so let's operate on the hypothetical scenario that this has occurred. Your question is actually "how does the state justify setting minimum safety standards for work places?", because your criticism applies to any and all scenarios where they choose to do so. Most people would agree that minimum safety standards should be defined, and that the state is usually the best party to handle that. But what if people think the state hasn't done a good enough job? Well people are entitled to think anything they like, for any reason at all. Some people think that the state is delinquent in allowing for coronavirus-causing 5G cell towers to be built. Just because somebody thinks something, doesn't mean it has any merit. For somebody's thoughts to be taken seriously, they are usually expected to provide some sort of rational basis for having them. So far you have provided no basis at all, rational or otherwise, for believing that the CA EDD has failed to make reasonable judgements about workplace safety in relation to COVID-19. If you're not capable of doing that, then your assertion that people are being forced to choose between receiving unemployment benefits and their own personal safety, is completely without merit.