
Tesla workers’ unemployment may be suspended if they don't return, emails show - dhruvarora013
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/tesla-workers-unemployment-benefits-emails
======
Andaith
I'm a foreigner so I don't fully understand this, but here's my take:

1) Tesla is restarting the factory against local rules saying they can't,
because their competition is in different localities with their local rules
saying they can, and Tesla is at a disadvantage.

2) It's basically illegal for the workers to go to work, but Tesla is still
insisting they do this?

3) the local council has said they won't do enforcement.

4) If the staff refuse (a potentially unsafe) order from Tesla to return to
their jobs (to break the law) the govt will stop paying unemployment?

So, my understanding, the workers have to potentially risk their health and
break the law or the govt won't pay them unemployment?

Have I made a mistake?

That's a messed up situation for those workers. Does Cali do anything like
suspended sentences(you get sentenced to prison, but you don't have to go, but
if you do another crime you have to go for both durations)? Would this impact
workers in that situation?

~~~
gamblor956
You're not missing anything. The local county has already said they won't
prosecute the workers for violating the health order since Elon Musk is making
them choose between their health or their livelihoods.

It's also unlikely the local county or state will prosecute Elon Musk since
it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged
with.

However, it's very likely that Musk will be sued in civil court by one or more
of his (ex) employees. There are a variety of different legal claims they
could make, so it's hard to say what the outcome would be.

~~~
clouddrover
> _it 's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be
> charged with._

Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged:

[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi...](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-
closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores)

[https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-
bus...](https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-businesses-
cited-for-remaining-open-during-coronavirus-shutdown/)

Alameda county could do the same.

~~~
masonic
The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a
_list of defendants_ but no reference to criminal charges; the article
specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those
properties).

~~~
clouddrover
> _the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to
> those properties_

No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers:

[https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-
al...](https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-allegedly-
non-essential-businesses-operating-in-violation-of-emergency-order)

Look up the criminal case summary using the case number:

[http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx](http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx)

~~~
masonic

      No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers:
    

You say "No", as if the _article_ says otherwise, then quote a different
source altogether. I was addressing specifically what the _article_ did and
didn't reference.

Anyway, this confirms my earlier point about these articles not identifying a
related _state_ criminal statute.

These charges are from the _L.A. Administrative Code_ , and there is a statute
_specific to Los Angeles_ :

"Sec. 8.77. Punishment of Violations. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by
a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or
both, for any person, during a local emergency declared pursuant to this
chapter, to: ... 8.77(b). Do any act forbidden by any lawful rule, regulation,
order or directive issued pursuant to this chapter, if such act is of a nature
as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to any national enemy, or imperil
the lives or property of other inhabitants of this City, or to prevent, hinder
or delay the defense or protection thereof."

~~~
clouddrover
> _You say "No", as if the article says otherwise_

Yes, because the article says otherwise.

> _then quote a different source altogether_

Yes, it's additional information because you're still not getting it.

------
hvasilev
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
That is going to be one hell of a villain.

------
JackPoach
Elon is playing with fire. This is punk mentality - let's get as close to self
destruction as possible. It's OK to make decisions for yourself but health of
others?

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
The thing is, the Alameda County Public Health Department changed their policy
now that they received Tesla's plan (that was posted to the company's blog
when they announced the lawsuit), and is now allowing Tesla to augment their
operation activities beyond the bare minimum, in preparation for a full
reopening next week. I guess both parties will claim that they went ahead
according to their original plans but somehow, Tesla will have been able to
restart much sooner than Alameda County's goal. In that case, "playing with
fire" would be fruitful, esp. if Alameda County pretend things went just fine.

~~~
pjc50
This depends on how much coronavirus ends up spreading among Tesla employees
in the next weeks.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
It should be similar to Tesla handled in their Shanghai factory, and probably
better considering that the Fremont team is in the spotlight now.

------
freepor
Elon Musk is the guy who bets his house at the roulette table. It’s been
working out for him so far but one day he’s going to step into some shit his
money can’t get him out of and it’s going to be entirely his own fault.

~~~
dang
You've been using multiple accounts in ways that break the HN guidelines
badly. We've banned several of these accounts. If you don't want to be banned,
you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that
you'll follow the rules in the future.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
w3mmpp
I have a question:

Where is her second leg?

------
graycrow
Many other businesses of the same size are probably already doing or will do
the same, but it is Tesla who is always disgraced in the media.

~~~
itsmeamario
They're all at fault. it's not just Tesla.

------
buboard
No judgement , but just a reminder that this is a company making expensive
battery cars at a time when nobody's driving and oil prices are negative

~~~
intev
No presumption, but demand outstrips supply for teslas so they are always
atleast a few months behind, and now probably much more.

------
kjksf
It's not like Tesla has a choice. From the e-mail:

>Choosing not to report to work may eliminate or reduce your eligibility for
unemployment depending on your state’s unemployment agency

Tesla is not the one making the rules of unemployment benefits. They merely
informing people of the rules.

What is Tesla supposed to do: lie to the government about employment status of
their employees? Pay them even if they don't work?

~~~
pimple20
Not risk their employees' lives just to keep the Musk profit machine going?
Let their workers stay safe while collecting unemployment benefit?

~~~
natch
False dichotomy. Nobody is completely safe from the virus. There will be
illnesses both in the factory, and outside it.

It’s better that the workers have jobs, have an employer that stays in
business, and have health care benefits for their families. If you want people
to be safer, that is safer.

But again nobody is completely safe. There are going to be cases whether
people go to work or not. But the factory is arguably a safer environment than
most homes for virus transmission. I’ve been there and it’s a pretty damn
sterile place where viruses would not thrive imho.

I realize it can stay viable for weeks on certain surfaces but I wouldn’t be
surprised if the average surface in a home is more virus friendly than that
factory. So, arguably safer.

------
londons_explore
Workers are saying "please don't offer our jobs back because then we won't get
unemployment benefits".

~~~
itsmeamario
Workers are saying "please don't make us back to work during a once-in-a-
century pandemic because it's unsafe and we don't wanna die"

~~~
graycrow
Who and when should decide if it's safe or not?

~~~
LarvaFX
Fauci

~~~
natch
43-second video of Dr. Fauci saying people should not wear masks:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZAxzT1j0c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZAxzT1j0c)

Rhetorical question: Why was he saying that?

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Dr. Fauci and his guidance has changed over
time for a reason. But I am also a fan of looking at all angles of a situation
and thinking for yourself, and Fauci is not here to see the situation in
Fremont, nor is he entirely a straight shooter in all this since he is bending
under pressure from different angles not to be.

