3 ms·

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 i

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.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      My premise is that the state has no right to force people to go back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. Again, you seem to be saying the state has this right, and I would like you to justify that belief. Or, would you rather waste more words trying to weasel away from the question?
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Well there you go making up statistics again. The state of California did not create COVID-19, and it’s not responsible for ensuring that you live your life free from the risk of personal harm. Aside from being an entirely impossible task, it has never been the role of government to reduce your risk of harm to zero. The role of government in this context is generally agreed to be setting minimum standards. The state of California decided those standards could not be met when the outbreak began, and required large numbers of people to remain at home. Those people were entitled to unemployment benefits. It has now decided that in some circumstances it is safe to return to work. If it is safe for you to return to work, according to the standards set by the CA EDD, and you have a place of work to return to, your choice is to return to a safe place of work, or sacrifice your entitlement to unemployment benefits. If you do not have a safe place of work to return to, you don’t have to make any decision at all. If you believe that people are being forced to return to unsafe working environments, then state your case. Because so far the only case you’ve put forward to support that theory is statistics that you literally just made up.
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.

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.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    My premise is that the state has no right to force people to go back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. Again, you seem to be saying the state has this right, and I would like you to justify that belief. Or, would you rather waste more words trying to weasel away from the question?
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Well there you go making up statistics again. The state of California did not create COVID-19, and it’s not responsible for ensuring that you live your life free from the risk of personal harm. Aside from being an entirely impossible task, it has never been the role of government to reduce your risk of harm to zero. The role of government in this context is generally agreed to be setting minimum standards. The state of California decided those standards could not be met when the outbreak began, and required large numbers of people to remain at home. Those people were entitled to unemployment benefits. It has now decided that in some circumstances it is safe to return to work. If it is safe for you to return to work, according to the standards set by the CA EDD, and you have a place of work to return to, your choice is to return to a safe place of work, or sacrifice your entitlement to unemployment benefits. If you do not have a safe place of work to return to, you don’t have to make any decision at all. If you believe that people are being forced to return to unsafe working environments, then state your case. Because so far the only case you’ve put forward to support that theory is statistics that you literally just made up.

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.