3 ms·

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: h

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
        No, my question is more along the lines of this: suppose there's a 1% chance of getting COVID-19 by going back to work (either at work or on transit, or whatever), and a 1% chance of dying from it [0]. The state, then, is subjecting these workers to a 10 in 100,000 chance of dying simply in order to support their families. 10 in 100,000 risk of death ranks with the 20th most deadly occupation in the US: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2018-7#20-operating-engineers-and-other-construction-equipment-operators-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-a... This is not about "minimum workplace standards," this is about people who are now subjected to significantly more danger simply by going to work. Based on the list in the article, it would make anyone's job at least 10-200% more dangerous. So, again, how do you justify that? Keep in mind, these are not workers who signed up for the 21st most deadly occupation in the US. Please try to actually answer the question rather than weasel out of it. --- [0]: 1% cumulative chance of getting the disease in the next year. Also, 1% fatality rate is an approximation. Let's not quibble about the actual number. We've already lost far more than 10 in 100,000 Americans to this disease. The fact is, COVID-19 makes going to work vastly more dangerous than it was 5 months ago.
  - natch 6y ago
    You are not reading what is being said. If an individual has particular safety or health issues regarding returning to the workplace, then their unemployment is not affected. So they don't have to make the choice you are saying they have to make.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Every worker is faced with the choice of "go back to work and have an increased risk of getting this disease that has a ~1% chance of killing you, or lose unemployment benefits." Explain to me how this is not the case, except for those who can WFH.
      - natch 6y ago
        Yah, life is dangerous. More so during flu season, and even more so with COVID-19 around. You seem indignant. It's just reality though. Sometimes it can be harsh.

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
        No, my question is more along the lines of this: suppose there's a 1% chance of getting COVID-19 by going back to work (either at work or on transit, or whatever), and a 1% chance of dying from it [0]. The state, then, is subjecting these workers to a 10 in 100,000 chance of dying simply in order to support their families. 10 in 100,000 risk of death ranks with the 20th most deadly occupation in the US: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2018-7#20-operating-engineers-and-other-construction-equipment-operators-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-a... This is not about "minimum workplace standards," this is about people who are now subjected to significantly more danger simply by going to work. Based on the list in the article, it would make anyone's job at least 10-200% more dangerous. So, again, how do you justify that? Keep in mind, these are not workers who signed up for the 21st most deadly occupation in the US. Please try to actually answer the question rather than weasel out of it. --- [0]: 1% cumulative chance of getting the disease in the next year. Also, 1% fatality rate is an approximation. Let's not quibble about the actual number. We've already lost far more than 10 in 100,000 Americans to this disease. The fact is, COVID-19 makes going to work vastly more dangerous than it was 5 months ago.
- natch 6y ago
  You are not reading what is being said. If an individual has particular safety or health issues regarding returning to the workplace, then their unemployment is not affected. So they don't have to make the choice you are saying they have to make.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Every worker is faced with the choice of "go back to work and have an increased risk of getting this disease that has a ~1% chance of killing you, or lose unemployment benefits." Explain to me how this is not the case, except for those who can WFH.
    - natch 6y ago
      Yah, life is dangerous. More so during flu season, and even more so with COVID-19 around. You seem indignant. It's just reality though. Sometimes it can be harsh.