4 ms·

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 th

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.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Why would I want to make any attempt to justify the hypothetical scenarios that you invent? The scenario of people being denied unemployment for refusing to return to work is a hypothetical scenario that you invented. You have presented no evidence that this has occurred. The idea that CA EDD is not providing safe working environments is another hypothetical scenario that you invented and have provided no evidence for. Your hypothetical statistics are also frankly ridiculous. So far ~0.000813% of California's population have died of COVID-19, which is about the same amount of Californians who died in traffic fatalities in 2018. Does California need to justify not providing unemployment benefits to people who think travelling to work is too dangerous? Most people would think that's ridiculous. Your entire premise is that the standards used by the CA EDD are not sufficient, and that you speculate they're going to increase COVID fatalities by more than an order of magnitude. Yet you can not provide a single reason to justify any of this speculation.
  - natch 6y ago
    The quote you quoted literally does not exist in any source. In other words, you made it up, and put quote marks around it. That's not a super great way of conducting a conversation. OK. Even so, I think the state should have the power to make that determination, if it's being asked to hand you a check. But they consider factors like family risk and childcare needs, and they have interviews to go over details of specific cases. So I think you're too easily making up stuff here and not grasping what the real facts are.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Yes, those are words I used earlier that the person I was replying to ignored. I did so openly and without attributing them to anyone else. What's the problem? Glad to know you think the state has a right to make my job 3x as dangerous, because "fuck me," right? Circumstances aside, you're literally saying the state has a right to send some people into the line of fire for the sake of what? Capitalism? The economy?
      - natch 6y ago
        You can choose whether to work or not. There are other options. The state isn't sending you into a line of fire or anywhere for that matter. And the state didn't make your job 3x more dangerous; the virus might have done that, possibly, depending on the job. Lots of things make life more dangerous. Some of those things are not controllable even by governments or employers. I guess I'm feeding a troll here though, sigh.
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Please don’t forget that the suggestion that these jobs “3x more dangerous”, or that by returning to work you’re subjecting yourself to a 1% chance of death from COVID-19, are just complete fabrications invented by pmiller2. So far he is yet to voice a single concern about the actual conditions of people currently returning to work in CA, or any reason at all why it might be unsafe for them to do so.
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

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.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Why would I want to make any attempt to justify the hypothetical scenarios that you invent? The scenario of people being denied unemployment for refusing to return to work is a hypothetical scenario that you invented. You have presented no evidence that this has occurred. The idea that CA EDD is not providing safe working environments is another hypothetical scenario that you invented and have provided no evidence for. Your hypothetical statistics are also frankly ridiculous. So far ~0.000813% of California's population have died of COVID-19, which is about the same amount of Californians who died in traffic fatalities in 2018. Does California need to justify not providing unemployment benefits to people who think travelling to work is too dangerous? Most people would think that's ridiculous. Your entire premise is that the standards used by the CA EDD are not sufficient, and that you speculate they're going to increase COVID fatalities by more than an order of magnitude. Yet you can not provide a single reason to justify any of this speculation.
- natch 6y ago
  The quote you quoted literally does not exist in any source. In other words, you made it up, and put quote marks around it. That's not a super great way of conducting a conversation. OK. Even so, I think the state should have the power to make that determination, if it's being asked to hand you a check. But they consider factors like family risk and childcare needs, and they have interviews to go over details of specific cases. So I think you're too easily making up stuff here and not grasping what the real facts are.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Yes, those are words I used earlier that the person I was replying to ignored. I did so openly and without attributing them to anyone else. What's the problem? Glad to know you think the state has a right to make my job 3x as dangerous, because "fuck me," right? Circumstances aside, you're literally saying the state has a right to send some people into the line of fire for the sake of what? Capitalism? The economy?
    - natch 6y ago
      You can choose whether to work or not. There are other options. The state isn't sending you into a line of fire or anywhere for that matter. And the state didn't make your job 3x more dangerous; the virus might have done that, possibly, depending on the job. Lots of things make life more dangerous. Some of those things are not controllable even by governments or employers. I guess I'm feeding a troll here though, sigh.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Please don’t forget that the suggestion that these jobs “3x more dangerous”, or that by returning to work you’re subjecting yourself to a 1% chance of death from COVID-19, are just complete fabrications invented by pmiller2. So far he is yet to voice a single concern about the actual conditions of people currently returning to work in CA, or any reason at all why it might be unsafe for them to do so.

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.