Forcibly re-opening the economy, how will this work out?

[Climber]

States signal they could strip workers' unemployment benefits if they don't return to work

Iowa, Oklahoma and other states reopening soon amid the coronavirus outbreak are issuing early warnings to their worried workers: Return to your jobs or risk losing unemployment benefits.

The threats have been loudest among Republican leaders in recent days, reflecting their anxious attempts to jump-start local economic recovery roughly two months after most businesses shut their doors. In Iowa, for example, state officials even have posted a public call for companies to get in touch if an "employee refuses to return to work."

For some states, the concern is that residents who are offered their old jobs back simply may not accept them, choosing instead to continue tapping historically generous unemployment aid. The $2 trillion congressional coronavirus relief package signed by President Donald Trump in March greatly plussed up weekly benefit checks for out-of-work Americans, and some people now may be earning more than they did previously.

There is good and bad people on both sides, in situations like this.

I think that there is a very high possibility of abuse on both sides.

We could see a significant spike in cases in states that are implementing plans on forcing their workers back into the job place.

(Can we keep this discussion/thoughts on the pros and cons instead of having it turn into 'those <political party> are scumbags, I know it's an easy path to go down with a story like this)

 

[dravnx]

Unemployment is paid to workers who are willing and available for work. It their choice. How could you not accept your old job back and still receive assistance? Seems like the employer would simply notify the agency and your assistance would end.

 

[Climber]

Unemployment is paid to workers who are willing and available for work. It their choice. How could you not accept your old job back and still receive assistance? Seems like the employer would simply notify the agency and your assistance would end.

What if your employer is perfectly willing to put you at significant rise, not doing anything to reduce risks because they don't have to?

What if you're in the higher risk group?

On the other side, I can understand that some people will prefer to keep getting the free money while not working.

 

[dravnx]

There are other agencies that protect workers health such as OSHA. If you believe your employer is putting you at risk, report them to OSHA. If you can't work due to health issues, then it is a Workmen's Comp case.
Of course, there will always be those that play the gray areas and those that game the system.

 

[GAJ]

There are other agencies that protect workers health such as OSHA. If you believe your employer is putting you at risk, report them to OSHA. If you can't work due to health issues, then it is a Workmen's Comp case.
Of course, there will always be those that play the gray areas and those that game the system.

With the $600/week $2600/month FED add on to your State Unemployment Compensation for many workers they make much more by not working than by working which is where this is coming from.

Not a Republican, but I can see their point to be honest.

The median personal income in the US is $865/week so obviously half of all workers make less than that.

Some much less.

 

[Climber]

With the $600/week $2600/month FED add on to your State Unemployment Compensation for many workers they make much more by not working than by working which is where this is coming from.

Not a Republican, but I can see their point to be honest.

The median personal income in the US is $865/week so obviously half of all workers make less than that.

Some much less.

This was a problem created by the Feds choosing to make it a blanket $600 for the entire country even though there is significant differences in average income for different regions. I know the reason they did it that way, but it also created potential problems as you point out.

 

[budman]

We are discussing how to re-engage our staff.

The protocols etc. I know at least 2 are super nervous about coming in.
I will continue to have the most at risk dude work from home. He is good on his own really anyway.

I could see one basically refusing to come in. At that point WTF am I going to do??

 

[dravnx]

There is nothing you can do. If you set up acceptable protocols for distancing, sanitizing, etc. then it becomes a workers comp issue.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf

 

[GAJ]

I could see one basically refusing to come in. At that point WTF am I going to do??

Some answers here but it seems to be very very complicated as you are finding out.

https://www.mwe.com/insights/corona...-is-an-employees-motivation-to-return-to-work

 

[GAJ]

We are discussing how to re-engage our staff.

The protocols etc. I know at least 2 are super nervous about coming in.
I will continue to have the most at risk dude work from home. He is good on his own really anyway.

I could see one basically refusing to come in. At that point WTF am I going to do??

Just found this.

General concern about exposure to coronavirus is typically not a sufficient enough reason to stay home and continue collecting benefits, according to a recent guidance from the Department of Labor.

However, some people could remain eligible under the pandemic unemployment assistance program that allows those who were advised by a health provider to self-quarantine or who are caring for children whose schools have closed, for example, to qualify for benefits.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/unemployment-benefits-higher-than-work-wages/index.html

 

[afm199]

Let me explain something here. Most of the Iowa Covid cases are from ONE meat packing plant.

Forcing those guys to return to work is tantamount to a crap shoot death sentence. The industry refuses to engage in any serious discussion of working distances. The closer the working distance, the faster the processing.

I'm from Iowa and familiar with the industry. I've worked in a meat processing facility.

 

[budman]

Thanks Geoff.

Appreciate taking the time to link that.

 

[afm199]

We are discussing how to re-engage our staff.

The protocols etc. I know at least 2 are super nervous about coming in.
I will continue to have the most at risk dude work from home. He is good on his own really anyway.

I could see one basically refusing to come in. At that point WTF am I going to do??

We have a similar problem. So far it's possible for staff to work from home and no policy requiring them to come in. That will probably change as conditions change. And it's not possible to work from home indefinitely, the office two screen ( large ) workstations can't be duplicated at home, and the wrist injuries from laptops are real. This is a clusterfuck for everyone. And the lawsuits that will probably emerge. FUCK.

 

[dravnx]

Good info

 

[ejv]

There are other agencies that protect workers health such as OSHA. If you believe your employer is putting you at risk, report them to OSHA. If you can't work due to health issues, then it is a Workmen's Comp case.
Of course, there will always be those that play the gray areas and those that game the system.

There is nothing you can do. If you set up acceptable protocols for distancing, sanitizing, etc. then it becomes a workers comp issue.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf

It is my understanding that state workers comp is for injuries caused by work. I don't think fear of returning to work, which is what I am gathering from your posts, would be covered. Having worked in the federal system doing work comp for federal employees, I can assure you it would not be covered in that system. And generally speaking federal work comp is far more generous of a program.


Like you say, address work safety issues with something like CALOSHA, but if the work environment is determined to be safe and someone doesn't want to work for fear of possibly contracting a disease or becoming injured in some way, I think they need to find a new job or accept being unemployed.


If someone can't work due to health issues not accepted as work comp, then that is an issue with disability not work comp. Often times feds would be rehabilitated fully or offered an acceptable job that they could perform with whatever permanent restrictions they might end up with but they would get so used to not working they wouldn't want to return (or quite often didn't like their job or their management enough to want to return). So they would leave comp and elect to take disability retirement (or regular OPM retirement if they were eligible and it paid better).


Comp was better financially but comp is a return to work program not a retirement program. I'm pretty sure state WC views it the same way. Disability was also far less critical of the medical conditions and restrictions. It also looked at everything someone had medically holding them back rather than just the accepted work related issues.

 

[WoodsChick]

Unemployment is paid to workers who are willing and available for work. It their choice. How could you not accept your old job back and still receive assistance? Seems like the employer would simply notify the agency and your assistance would end.

I was originally hired at my hotel as a PBX operator. I cross-trained for the front desk a year or so after starting there (27 years ago) and then became the official trainer for front desk agents even though I was officially an operator. After watching FD agents with less seniority get weekends off I put my foot down. Either take my bank away and I work no more FD shifts, or make me a FD agent and give me my seniority/weekends off. Fast forward 20 years and I am back in an office as an operator/control clerk, and I am at the top of the seniority heap in the Front Office department. When things slowed down I was offered FD shifts. I declined for numerous reasons, chief among them the much higher risk of exposure. I chose to take time off without pay (I always volunteer when things slow down as I value my time off more than my pay these days, and I know my coworkers can't afford it like I can) rather than go to the desk. My bosses all know how I feel about working the desk. I am concerned that when we start going back to work they will want me to work the desk, as having an operator is viewed as a luxury that I'm sure we can't afford. I am willing to wait it out until I am needed, and let my coworkers go back to work first and man the desk. I'm concerned that this will be viewed as turning down work, even though I would be turning down work that is not technically in my job description. Not really sure how to deal with this. I can certainly get by with no unemployment for quite awhile but I'd rather not... :nchantr

IHateBeingAFrontDeskChick

 

[dravnx]

I'm certainly no expert on unemployment as I've never collected it. I was always under the impression that you had a weekly or bi-weekly form that asked if you were ready and willing to work and what have you done to find employment. If you choose not to work, why should you receive unemployment benefits?

 

[WoodsChick]

I'm certainly no expert on unemployment as I've never collected it. I was always under the impression that you had a weekly or bi-weekly form that asked if you were ready and willing to work and what have you done to find employment. If you choose not to work, why should you receive unemployment benefits?

Congratulations. I've never been on unemployment either until now, and I've been working for the last 42 years. I will be offered shifts doing something that is not my job (and will still be expected to do my actual job at the same time) and one that exposes me to quite a bit more risk. I have 2 very high-risk family members that I'm very concerned about. If it comes down to losing my unemployment benefits I would still turn the Front Desk assignment down.

 

[The Smokester]

...I could see one basically refusing to come in. At that point WTF am I going to do??

Assuming you want this employee to stay, do you need him/her to return from home immediately? Are you going to need your workforce at full strength right out of the gate? Perhaps you can delay his/her return to accommodate this (perhaps) not-entirely irrational fear.

 

[budman]

Right now I will let him work what he can from home.

I don't anticipate going back to 100% for months. When he sees the others guys are getting close to 40 hr work weeks as some point he will have to make a decision that is best for him.

His take is supposition on my part so we will see what reality really is.