Steve Mnuchin: Employees Who Reject Offer To Resume Work Ineligible For Unemployment

originally posted by: madmac5150
The President should replace Mnuchin, with Red Foreman.

The Red Foreman plan:

Give them a foot up the a$$.

Go back to work, hippies dumb ass.

FTFY.

Hey, the guy's not in the wrong here, unemployment is supposed to tide you over just enough to survive until you get real work, it's not fricking welfare. If you're too goddamn afraid to go to work anymore, GET ON REAL WELFARE. That has restrictions and requirements to eventually get off yer duff, too, so that won't last long either.

< smirk > It's about to get amusing with the whining "Can't work" excuses, quick.

a reply to: ketsuko

It isn't just the unemployment benefits. In my state (and many others, I'm sure) they also encouraged everybody to sign up for food stamps and Medicaid- and approved EVERYONE. So they are making more on unemployment than they would working and are getting free groceries and medical care on top of that. That adds up to an extremely nice income for just sitting at home eating Cheetohs or whatever. It was a complete cluster frackity frack from the get-go! And people are shocked that it isn't going to go on forever? It's crazy!

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

If your place of employment isn't doing what is necessary to keep you safe then they should not be allowed to be open.

Sorry you missed it, but that was my point when I asked "What requirements are Steve Mnuchin requiring those employers to have in place before requiring scared workers to return?"

The CDC prepared detailed safety guidelines for re-opening everything from pre-schools to courthouses, and the Trump Administration said "They'll never see the light of day". Fortunately, that document was leaked, and the Trump Administration was forced to release something from the CDC. So, they released a weak, watered down version that allows employers to use their discretion when to test, when to offer PPE and when to social distance. In the meantime, Mitch McConnell is pushing for a bill that provides protection for such employers, who put dollars signs above the health and safety of their employees, making it impossible for the employees to hold their employers accountable in courts.

I'm all for people getting back to work. I'm all for employers providing their employers a safe environment to work in, regardless of how painful that turns out to be for the employer.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The federal government really doesn't have a say-so in those requirements, although the majority of state governors (who actually DO have the say-so) are following CDC guidelines and are doing their best to enforce it. If a place of business is not following their state guidelines employees (or even customers) are being encouraged to report violations to their state or city health department for investigation- if you're into that sort of thing.

What most people are not understanding is that the federal government can only make recommendations as state governments have autonomy. The only way the fed could make nationwide rules on re-openings would be to declare martial law. That is something that we absolutely do not need! So unless that happens (and let us hope it does not!) they only have control over what is done with federal funds- and the additional $600 per week via unemployment benefits is exactly that. They can decide who gets it and under what circumstances just like any other time.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

"how many American lives are worth .5% of GDP?"

That's a good question; but to many people are too puritanical to answer it.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

The Center for Disease Control, a federal organization under the Department of Health and Human Services, issues guidelines for local state health departments to follow. OSHA is a federal watchdog to make sure employers are following government imposed guidelines.

The problem is, the CDC guidelines issued do not require employers provide adequate protections. It leaves it to their discretion. So, shouldn't it also be up to the discretion of employees to return to unsafe workplaces? The purpose of temporary unemployment benefits bolstered by an additional $600 a week was to pay people to stay home, so that they didn't need to go out looking for work, and possible contract/spread the virus. They shouldn't be forced to contract/spread the virus at the work place now. Employers should be required to implement the best guidelines, not the cheapest and easiest.

If an employer forces their employees to work under unsafe conditions, and the employee falls ill as a result, don't you agree that the employee should have some kind of recourse for holding their employer responsible?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Unless you are a slave, no employer "forces" you to work for them. Your employment is a contract between yourself and your employer.

If you think your employer's provisions for your health and safety are not good enough, then you are free to leave that job and seek out another one. This has always been the way it has been even before we had a virus.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

"how many American lives are worth .5% of GDP?"

That's a good question; but to many people are too puritanical to answer it.

So I looked it up:

US yearly GDP is around 20T

0.5% of that is 100B

Based on Stanford economists a year of quality human life is worth around 130K.

So 0.5% of GDP is worth about 770 thousand lives.

A further argument can be made that since the people dieing from this particular disease are elderly and infirmed their average year of life is worth less than the overal average of 130k because their quality of life has been diminished.


Time: The Value of a Human Life: $129,000

a reply to: ketsuko

But now we have the virus. Meat packing plants are a hot bed for the virus. You don't think they should be required to make adequate changes in order to protect their work force?

If the government provided for temporary unemployment to prevent the spread of disease, to protect public health, then an employer shouldn't be able to strip that safety net and those protections away from an employee and require them to come back to work, just to contract and spread the virus.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They tested one north of here.

The horror! Every worker was positive, and all but 30 of those were asymptomatic meaning most of them were "sick" without being sick. Of the 30 who did get ill, meaning they displayed actual symptoms, only 1 needed to be hospitalized, and he did, unfortunately die, but he also had underlying health conditions, too.

That was a pool of over 400 people, btw.

Sooo, roughly 7.5% of those cases had symptoms, and the virus displayed a mortality of maybe .25%.

Of course, no one has any real idea how widely in the community the virus has spread. Prior to that, the county had only logged 100 cases and no deaths. So let's add the 400 and 100 for 500. I am guessing the 100 cases were symptomatic which is why they were tested. So roughly a 26% symptomatic rate, and we're now out to a mortality rate of .2% in that county -- 1 person with underlying health conditions which is the norm for who is most at risk.

But if so few people actually got sick from it, what exactly should they do? And if their entire workforce is now immune to it, what exactly should they do?

If an employer forces their employees to work under unsafe conditions, and the employee falls ill as a result, don't you agree that the employee should have some kind of recourse for holding their employer responsible?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't think so because employment is voluntary. I have quit jobs with unsafe working conditions in the past that had nothing to do with Covid-19. I have also gotten sick at jobs when viruses were going around the job site without holding my employer responsible because I chose to be there when I could have walked out the door. You choose your place of employment voluntarily.

Now if there are state mandates that dictate requirements for re-opening businesses and the businesses are not complying with those mandates an employee has the choice of reporting that business to state authorities and/or seeking employment elsewhere. Unemployment benefits will still be available whose jobs aren't in compliance with mandates. But should a person be able to sue the business if they get sick? No because ultimately they went to work there of their own accord despite knowing that the business was not in compliance. Personal responsibility is an actual thing.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

I don't think so because employment is voluntary.

It isn't when you're talking about unemployment. The stay at home orders weren't voluntary. Living expenses aren't voluntary.

The purpose of the shut down was to protect public health and the health care system. Forcing employees back to work, under threat of taking their unemployment benefits, without adequate safety precautions is a public health risk that the public didn't volunteer for.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
It seems a whole lot of people are making more on unemployment (with the $600 per week extra from the federal govt) than they make on their actual paychecks and are trying to milk it for what it is worth.

What surprises me the most about this is that anyone is even remotely surprised by this.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The purpose of the shut down was to protect public health and the health care system. Forcing employees back to work, under threat of taking their unemployment benefits, without adequate safety precautions is a public health risk that the public didn't volunteer for.

# your shutdown, but most of all, # your FEAR.

I DON'T CARE if you are afraid. Get it? I don't CARE if you are a terrified little girl, afraid the boogeyman is gonna get you.

STAY HOME. STAY INSIDE. Leave the living to us grown ups.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If an employer forces their employees to work under unsafe conditions, and the employee falls ill as a result, don't you agree that the employee should have some kind of recourse for holding their employer responsible?

HELL NO.

Are you the kind of person who would sue your employer if you got the flu? How are you gonna prove where you got it?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

I don't think so because employment is voluntary.

Forcing employees back to work, under threat of taking their unemployment benefits, without adequate safety precautions is a public health risk that the public didn't volunteer for.

Crossing the GD street is a health risk. Look around, you are surrounded by "health risks" EVERY DAY. Bad stuff happens to random people EVERY DAY. There is no such thing as "security" It's just an illusion weak people cling to.

a reply to: underpass61

Crossing the GD street is a health risk.

That's why we have traffic lights, stop signs, speed bumps, speed limits, crosswalks and school crossing guards, patrol cops, citations for J walking...

If we could have so many protection for people crossing the street, I think we could implement adequate safety guidelines for workers at risk.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you the kind of person who would sue your employer if you got the flu?

Covid 19 isn't the flu.
Would you sue your neighbor if their untrimmed tree branch rammed through your daughter's bedroom window, hitting her?

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Most of these people don't think ahead about the consequences of refusing to show up to work in order to make a little more for a few weeks.

This may not be the case, but I look at them like I look at those who get a big bonus from their job and then quit. Or they quit after they get their tax returns.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You always have the right to seek employment elsewhere. Other places ARE in compliance with CDC recommendations and can't get their employees off the sofa- go apply at one of those.

I have explained that if businesses are not in compliance with mandates you can report them and if proven unemployment benefits would NOT be cut off. Your argument is redundant.

The lock downs were to keep the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, not to protect you from getting the virus but to slow the spread as preparations were made for an influx of patients. You can choose to stay at home, however just like any other choice there are always consequences to your choices.