Tesla has said that employees that feel uncomfortable can stay at home, but that will be unpaid.

That doesn’t sound like it would allow the employee to even apply for unemployment.... dirty.

It doesn't matter if you're still employed on paper. If you aren't getting paid (or even if you get a substantial paycut) you qualify for unemployment benefits.

The tricky part is if you're willingly not working. "Staying at home because of COVID" is a valid reason that some state governments are accepting.

No gov't in the country would question those unemployment benefits though, these days. So it's safe for them to file and collect.

That doesn't seem true:

https://labor.vermont.gov/unemployment-insurance/refusal-ret...

I believe there was also an HN submission about a group of states doing these types of things to force people back to work even if they feel scared of catching the virus, or giving up their unemployment benefits, though I can't find it now, so Vermont isn't the only state doing this.

That _obviously_ does not include going back to work in violation of a public health order.

That's not exactly true. Some states reopening (like GA) no longer consider a covid absence to still be eligible to receive benefits.

I think those still have exceptions for high risk individuals.

In this case, the country is preventing them from working under I presume the threat of arrest and/or fines. Surely is a good enough reason.

Is it not exactly the same whether the factory is closed or not? If you are listed as an employee you're not getting the unemployment.

Voluntary vs involuntary.

You get unemployment if you're involuntarily out of work (laid off/furloughed/reduced hours). If you voluntarily chose not to work when offered, or at fault for termination, you're typically disqualified from unemployment.

"Typically" might be correct. Our nation's Covid-19 unemployment response is not typical.

All of my employees have been given the option to work, or be furloughed. Their decision. Two have chosen to stay home for their own personal reasons. They are on state unemployement and also collecting that weekly check from the fed. It's up to the fed when they stop doing that, but these people know we will work with them if/when that goes away.

Don't give Elon the benefit of the doubt for most things, but I think he's right on.

Is it really voluntary choosing not to work when the state is telling you to stay home and you comply?

Again, it’s a really terrible way to treat your employees.

If a factory closes down, the following layoffs allow the person to get back on their feet without the help of their employer. Removing this option leaves the employer with 100% of the leverage (without a union, anyway).

no, that's what all of this is about. conservatives don't like in principle that people are receiving unemployment for their pandemic-induced lost hours (employers - and in some states workers too - pay an unemployment tax on payroll to fund rainy days like these. that unemployment tax is largely subsidized by the federal government, as well)

ETA: the conservatives are absolutely wrong, and the only way out of this is more help for those affected.

They have a word for that: unemployment.

lol. my wife works there, that's not how Tesla works. 100% everyone that refuses to go to work now will get fired, they'll just make a list and do it later for optics. Tesla (Elon) emphatically doesn't give a shit about their employees.

My uncle works there and he would disagree with your characterization

Then he must be a weirdo because I never met a Tesla employee that believes the company cares about them. They all tend to believe Tesla is doing important work and are bought in the mission, but nobody has any illusions about how much the company loves them back. Humans are disposable there.

It’s illegal to fire someone who refuses to violate the law.

In California this is considered “ Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy” https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2400/2430... but it’s illegal in most states

Of course, you still have to have a lawyer and be able to win your lawsuit so no idea how much protection this actually gives a worker.

Don't go, sue when you get fired, and collect the money. All while staying at home. Isn't that obvious? You will be fired for not committing a criminal act. Labor attorneys are salivating right now.

I feel like any employee who is under 50 years old, does not have any comorbidities, and whos cohabitants do not have any comorbidities should be able to work because the risk then really is flu like.

Except for the permanent or long term lung, heart, liver, brain damage.

and that younger people will be carriers to higher risk people they will be in contact it

The death-rate is flu-like if hospitals are not at capacity, and young people have a 10x greater chance of needing hospitalisation than the regular flu.

The worry isn't individual risk, it's systemic risk.