Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-14-2020, 08:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I am horde-buying all the Monopoly games in the area, in anticipation that the government will make monopoly money legal tender. Their printing presses just can't keep up.
It's okay as long as there's no inflationary pressure, which there isn't right now. If it were just printing money and if there was little or no taxation, we'd have a problem (Weimar Germany). If we're printing money and there's little or no production of goods or services or anything of economic value, or if we were asking government and gov't contractors to build things without having any real way to repay those costs, we'd have a serious problem. We're not at that point yet.

It's possible to cause inflation by flooding the market with extra money during an economic upswing. In this scenario, people who don't necessarily need stimulus would have extra money to spend, which would in turn create a surge in consumption (good in the short-term) but consumption would outstrip demand and quickly lead to a rise in prices (bad in the longer term and really, really bad for those on limited income).

A bigger worry I have now is that we're borrowing against the future, and the future of things like SS and medicare just got bleaker. If you're my age (mid 40s) or a little older (in your 50s), retirement is likely gonna be more complicated.
  #52  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:33 AM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
That's reasonable. I think I only made a couple of minor inferences in addition to his actual words in this thread, but debating what an actual 3rd-party, active poster meant isn't a good use of anyone's time.

That's a good point, and I don't have a great sense of how this works at a quantitative level. How much more does it cost me, and when?
It's hard to make generalizations because the calculation depends on which state you are in, how many employees you have and at what pay grades, sometimes what industry you are in, and a host of other factors. You typically just have to crunch the numbers to estimate what your particular marginal cost of layoffs are. In general you don't want people getting unemployment when they aren't entitled. I'd imagine there must be cases where it's more trouble than it's worth to contest the former employee's claim. How prevalent those cases are after running the numbers, I have no real clue as I'm not in an HR line of work.

Quote:
Well, if you need employees that you're paying somewhere in the $15-$25 / hr range, I think you're in that boat whether you know it or not. The vast majority of your employees are going to prefer to make more and have all their time free than make less and have no time free. That's not a knock on those people - I'd feel the same.
But that's "just" a framing problem. Absolutely "more money + free time" vs "less money + limited free time" is an obvious decision. "more money in the short term + free time in the short term + decent chance of starving/homeless a few months later" vs "less money + limited free time + still eating later because you still have a modest-but-steady paycheck" is not at all an obvious decision. If you are a manager/boss/leader/whatever of any sort, is it not basically one of the points of leadership to be able to deliver a convincing answer when a subordinate asks "Why should I listen to you?" by framing the decision in a way that favors your business interests?

I'll admit I'm coming at this from my own perspective and level of risk aversion. For all I know I am substantially more risk averse than an average person, which is why the whole concept of passing up a steady paycheck just for the potential opportunity to get a few months of outsized checks seems quite risky. Hence why having UI supports be somewhat more generous in the short-term that working a job, for some segment of the population, invokes an attitude of "eh, small potatoes relative to the overall set of problems we have right now."
  #53  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:33 PM
Harrington is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A big problem is that we have that $600 per week unemployment until July 31 which will make people who have been laid off not want to come back to work. Not that I blame them. I would certainly rather make more for staying home than take a pay cut by going back to work; this seems like something that was very shortsighted by our lawmakers in their haste to pass the first stimulus. This proposal adds to the problem.
Not returning to work is not a legal choice for employees, I mean, regarding unemployment benefits. If offered their old job back, and they refuse, the employer must report them and the employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits. In order to be eligible for the federal contribution, the worker must be receiving state UI. If they refuse to return to work they are no longer eligible for state UI and are subsequently ineligible for the federal contribution. It seems you're implying that an employee will get the federal contribution of $600 until July 31st regardless, as in they can turn down a reasonable offer of work (I'd say getting your old job back is reasonable), and still receive the $600. That is not true.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ur/5127242002/

Quote:
The CARES Act includes a $600-a-week bonus until July 31 for those registered as unemployed. The $600 is issued in addition to the standard unemployment benefit, which varies by state and by individuals’ record of previous earnings.

Last edited by Harrington; 05-14-2020 at 10:34 PM.
  #54  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:43 AM
What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
You don't get the $600 in Federal unemployment money if you aren't eligible for unemployment.

CMC fnord!
Eligibility has changed. You do not have to qualify for state unemployment to qualify for the $600. The states do have to implement though.
  #55  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:16 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...calls this bill "dead on arrival."

Now there's the strong signal from Trump that'll get Mitch to take this bill up right away!
There will be another stimulus. The Democrat proposal has various provisions about the election. Republicans want liability protection for businesses. Like I said a stimulus will pass but not in its current form.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...likelihood.amp

Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Eligibility has changed. You do not have to qualify for state unemployment to qualify for the $600. The states do have to implement though.
How do you go about doing that? My daughter is on unemployment and only has to apply through the state to get the state and federal money.
  #56  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:33 AM
Do Not Taunt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
There will be another stimulus. The Democrat proposal has various provisions about the election. Republicans want liability protection for businesses. Like I said a stimulus will pass but not in its current form.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...likelihood.amp
I agree that something will pass. I've got to imagine that with the way the first (CARES) act is being perceived (largely a giveaway to big business) coupled with the popularity of their initiatives, the Democrats should have an advantage in pursuing their policy aims (aid to states and the post office, longer UI, another cash handout, and protecting elections) relative to Republican policy aims (protect big business more!) But I don't underestimate Democrats' ability to screw up the messaging or give away much more than they need to.

Also, 'Democrat' is a noun, not an adjective. You meant 'Democratic proposal' above.
  #57  
Old 05-15-2020, 11:17 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,065
All of this "stimulus" is like trying to dry your hair before you get out of the shower. Instead of sending it to people to spend on takeout meals, spend it on finding a cure. The longer it takes to find a solution the more damage will be done, both in terms of lives and economic collapse.
  #58  
Old 05-15-2020, 11:22 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...calls this bill "dead on arrival."

Now there's the strong signal from Trump that'll get Mitch to take this bill up right away!
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Eligibility has changed. You do not have to qualify for state unemployment to qualify for the $600. The states do have to implement though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I agree that something will pass. I've got to imagine that with the way the first (CARES) act is being perceived (largely a giveaway to big business) coupled with the popularity of their initiatives, the Democrats should have an advantage in pursuing their policy aims (aid to states and the post office, longer UI, another cash handout, and protecting elections) relative to Republican policy aims (protect big business more!) But I don't underestimate Democrats' ability to screw up the messaging or give away much more than they need to.

Also, 'Democrat' is a noun, not an adjective. You meant 'Democratic proposal' above.
Itís not a democratic proposal. Itís a proposal by the Democratic Party. Itís not my fault they choose an adjective for their party name. It will always make for awkward syntax. They should have kept the Democratic Republican name.
  #59  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:09 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Itís not a democratic proposal. Itís a proposal by the Democratic Party. Itís not my fault they choose an adjective for their party name. It will always make for awkward syntax. They should have kept the Democratic Republican name.
What on earth? Surely you know the difference between "a democratic proposal" and "a Democratic proposal." Nobody but nobody is confused about this.
  #60  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:22 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
All of this "stimulus" is like trying to dry your hair before you get out of the shower. Instead of sending it to people to spend on takeout meals, spend it on finding a cure. The longer it takes to find a solution the more damage will be done, both in terms of lives and economic collapse.
I think the term "stimulus" is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of a "life preserver." The idea isn't that giving people money will stimulate the economy but more that they are in desperate need of cash to even stay afloat to begin with. That's why Kamala and Bernie recently teamed up to propose that Congress give every adult $2,000 a month until the pandemic crisis is over.
  #61  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:56 PM
Do Not Taunt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Itís not a democratic proposal. Itís a proposal by the Democratic Party. Itís not my fault they choose an adjective for their party name. It will always make for awkward syntax. They should have kept the Democratic Republican name.
Yes, exactly, Democratic Party. Not Democrat Party. Similarly, Democratic proposal, not Democrat proposal. No awkward syntax! Sheesh, do I have to hold your hand when you pee, too?
  #62  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the term "stimulus" is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of a "life preserver." The idea isn't that giving people money will stimulate the economy but more that they are in desperate need of cash to even stay afloat to begin with. That's why Kamala and Bernie recently teamed up to propose that Congress give every adult $2,000 a month until the pandemic crisis is over.
But it's not just them needing to stay afloat, it is also the people that will get that money when they spend it.
  #63  
Old 05-15-2020, 03:52 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
There will be another stimulus. The Democrat proposal has various provisions about the election. Republicans want liability protection for businesses. Like I said a stimulus will pass but not in its current form.
That's not a deal the Dems can make. "Sure, we gave Big Business a license to kill off the workers we supposedly fight for! But we also got you some money." Yeah, that really works.
  #64  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:35 PM
What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post



How do you go about doing that? My daughter is on unemployment and only has to apply through the state to get the state and federal money.
I don't know if this is a real question or not but either way you answered it yourself . It's federal money that is run thru the state systems since there is no federal system to pay unemployment benefits.
  #65  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:54 PM
What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,383
Should have added that the states waive work related requirements. Don't have to be looking.
  #66  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:06 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,078
This would be so much simpler if someone was providing cites for their claims, but, alas, no.

CMC fnord!
  #67  
Old 05-15-2020, 11:16 PM
Harrington is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
This would be so much simpler if someone was providing cites for their claims, but, alas, no.

CMC fnord!
Concur. You don't have to be looking for another job if you expect to get your old job back, but if offered your old job back, I doubt you could decline and still collect UI, or the federal contribution, because it's more economically fruitful for you. I'd be happy to be proven wrong with a cite.

Last edited by Harrington; 05-15-2020 at 11:19 PM.
  #68  
Old 05-15-2020, 11:32 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrington View Post
Concur. You don't have to be looking for another job if you expect to get your old job back, but if offered your old job back, I doubt you could decline and still collect UI, or the federal contribution, because it's more economically fruitful for you. I'd be happy to be proven wrong with a cite.
A fucked up loophole I learned about from my brother who's been furloughed. According to management, if he's called back soon and then a week later the company has to furlough him again he will only collect the normal amount of unemployment at that point.

CMC fnord!
  #69  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:27 AM
Brad the Impaler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 161
I’m on unemployment and getting the $600 kicker. I’m expecting to go back to work next week at least part time. I don’t expect to qualify for UI anymore, it if I qualify for even $1 I get the 600. If I bring home too much pay to qualify I don’t get the kicker. It’s going to be close. I do not, however, have the option of NOT going back if recalled and still collecting. There are some exceptions, if one is in an at risk group, recently exposed or currently sick due to the virus.
  #70  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:30 AM
Brad the Impaler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
A fucked up loophole I learned about from my brother who's been furloughed. According to management, if he's called back soon and then a week later the company has to furlough him again he will only collect the normal amount of unemployment at that point.

CMC fnord!
That may be a state loophole. In my state youíre claim is open for 52 weeks, to account for intermittent employment. As long as youíre on the same case, you can still collect it.
  #71  
Old 05-16-2020, 08:24 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
A fucked up loophole I learned about from my brother who's been furloughed. According to management, if he's called back soon and then a week later the company has to furlough him again he will only collect the normal amount of unemployment at that point.

CMC fnord!
It's not really a loophole.

I just closed for 8 weeks, and am just reopening this week.

During those 8 weeks, my employees were on a special unemployment for Covid layoffs. I gave them a special number to use that streamlined their application.

Under Covid unemployment, you get the extra federal money. You do not have to seek work. (And you, under normal circumstances, do not need to seek work if the layoff is supposed to last 45 days or less.)

Now that I have reopened, my employees are no longer eligible for Covid separation.

Things are doing well for me, so it's unlikely to happen, but should I no longer be able to employ them because I have to close my doors due to financial problems, that is regular unemployment. Under the regular unemployment, they will no longer get the federal money, and they will be required to seek work.

If, however, they decide to reinstate the lockdown, and I have to shut my doors for that reason, then they can go back on Covid separation.

This is Ohio, other states may vary.
  #72  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,225
Well the bill is on to the Senate, which is great because now the Republicans have to swallow their ideology or actually vote to kill the bill. I hope McConnell or Trump is dumb enough to do the latter: another beautiful trap laid down by President Pelosi.

Last edited by asahi; 05-16-2020 at 09:20 AM.
  #73  
Old 05-16-2020, 10:51 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Well the bill is on to the Senate, which is great because now the Republicans have to swallow their ideology or actually vote to kill the bill.
What forces the Senate to consider this bill at all? In terms of the choices available to McConnell, I don't see how this is different from all those great bills that the House passed a year ago that Mitch ignored.
  #74  
Old 05-16-2020, 11:07 AM
Do Not Taunt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
What forces the Senate to consider this bill at all? In terms of the choices available to McConnell, I don't see how this is different from all those great bills that the House passed a year ago that Mitch ignored.
True from a mechanics of the Senate perspective. From a public pressure perspective, I think there will be a lot more visibility on this bill than on the For The People Act, for example. I don't think the Senate will pass this exact bill, but I would expect a flavor of the HEROES Act to be signed into law this year.
  #75  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
True from a mechanics of the Senate perspective. From a public pressure perspective, I think there will be a lot more visibility on this bill than on the For The People Act, for example. I don't think the Senate will pass this exact bill, but I would expect a flavor of the HEROES Act to be signed into law this year.
This ^

There's no way the Senate can just ignore a $3T bill to the senate when you have 20-25% unemployment and the country is on the precipice of a total economic catastrophe.

I love the optics: let McConnell and Graham explain why households shouldn't have more money when we have 1930s style lines for food. Mind you, it's not just households that suffer when people are cash poor -- capitalism fundamentally fails to function in that situation, which is what we're in now.

The great masses have the opportunity to get a little education on how capitalism *really* works, and how it doesn't.
  #76  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:37 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,078
'How about this, for every $1 the undeserving poors get $29 goes to the noble job creators? We can call it the True Heroes Act!'

CMC fnord!
  #77  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:38 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,477
Can't the Senate pass its own version of the HEROES Act, stripping out most of the things House Democrats want, and then force the bill to go through "reconciliation" so that only a compromise version passes (since the version passed by both houses must ultimately be the same)?
  #78  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:40 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Can't the Senate pass its own version of the HEROES Act, stripping out most of the things House Democrats want, and then force the bill to go through "reconciliation" so that only a compromise version passes (since the version passed by both houses must ultimately be the same)?
Absolutely and this is exactly what will happen.
  #79  
Old 05-16-2020, 12:45 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,225
Yes, but what will they strip out?

I don't see Republicans forever agreeing to an endless stimulus stream. That's what people want and need, but it's not what the republican party wants and needs.
  #80  
Old 05-16-2020, 01:02 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,477
I personally prefer Kamala and Bernie's proposal for giving all American adults $2,000 per month until the pandemic crisis is over (although I think $1,000/month is more like it; $2k would be financially backbreaking) but that proposal appears dead on arrival within even the Democratic House.
  #81  
Old 05-17-2020, 12:39 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrington View Post
Not returning to work is not a legal choice for employees, I mean, regarding unemployment benefits. If offered their old job back, and they refuse, the employer must report them and the employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits. In order to be eligible for the federal contribution, the worker must be receiving state UI. If they refuse to return to work they are no longer eligible for state UI and are subsequently ineligible for the federal contribution. It seems you're implying that an employee will get the federal contribution of $600 until July 31st regardless, as in they can turn down a reasonable offer of work (I'd say getting your old job back is reasonable), and still receive the $600. That is not true.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ur/5127242002/
See post #23.
  #82  
Old 05-17-2020, 01:12 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,078
See post #23? Literally or figuratively?

CMC fnord!
  #83  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:00 AM
Harrington is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
See post #23.
You've got me confused as all fuck here. You said in post #7
Quote:
A big problem is that we have that $600 per week unemployment until July 31 which will make people who have been laid off not want to come back to work. Not that I blame them. I would certainly rather make more for staying home than take a pay cut by going back to work; this seems like something that was very shortsighted by our lawmakers in their haste to pass the first stimulus. This proposal adds to the problem.
You implied that someone who is laid off and offered their job back, they can refuse to return to work and still collect UI and the federal contribution of $600 until July 31st because is it more profitable. That is not true. If offered their job back and they refuse, they are no longer eligible for UI or the federal contribution.

Then you amended post #7 with post #23:

Quote:
Sure, it never happens that way. So a guy that I'm paying $33k/yr who wants to turn me down, I get to report him to unemployment and force him to come back and work for me. He'll be a wonderful employee.

Or do I just decide to let it go because I don't want someone sabotaging my business?
It's not "I get to report him (assuming it's a male) to unemployment," I have to report him. I'm legally obligated. The employee is not forced to go back to work, but if they choose not to go back to work, they are not eligible for UI. That the employee is "forced" to go back to work and may therefore be disgruntled is not a factor in UI eligibility.

"Oh, you don't want your job back because you'll make more with UI, oh, that's ok, I'll let it slide a few months because I don't want you coming back to work if you don't want to. You just keep collecting that UI and $600 federal contribution. You let me know when that runs out and we can't discuss things."

Utter bullshit. The employer would incur legal (possibly criminal) liability if he chose to do that.

Therefore, your post #23 is unconvincing. You're trying to cash in an irredeemable token.
  #84  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:37 AM
Harrington is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 201
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/what...k-to-work.html

Quote:
Employers who follow federal, state and local safety measures and call employees back to their former jobs will likely be recognized as providing ďsuitable work.Ē Workers cannot refuse suitable work and get any kind of unemployment benefits, says Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst with the National Employment Law Project. They also canít remain on unemployment simply because benefits pay them more than what theyíd earn after returning to work. The Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration additionally makes it clear that a general fear of exposure to the virus isnít enough to refuse work or quit your job.
  #85  
Old 05-17-2020, 02:27 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
True from a mechanics of the Senate perspective. From a public pressure perspective, I think there will be a lot more visibility on this bill than on the For The People Act, for example. I don't think the Senate will pass this exact bill, but I would expect a flavor of the HEROES Act to be signed into law this year.
I think your expectations regarding visibility are overly optimistic.

Time and time again over the past few years, when the Senate has simply refused to consider something, no matter how high-profile (take, for instance, Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS vacancy created by Scalia's death), it's dropped off the media radar pretty quickly.

How good will the Democrats be at keeping it alive in the media? About as terrible as they are with PR in general. (I'd love to be proven wrong. God, would I love to be proven wrong.)
  #86  
Old 05-18-2020, 10:59 AM
Do Not Taunt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think your expectations regarding visibility are overly optimistic.

Time and time again over the past few years, when the Senate has simply refused to consider something, no matter how high-profile (take, for instance, Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS vacancy created by Scalia's death), it's dropped off the media radar pretty quickly.

How good will the Democrats be at keeping it alive in the media? About as terrible as they are with PR in general. (I'd love to be proven wrong. God, would I love to be proven wrong.)
I don't really disagree - I think Democrats have been shockingly bad at making political hay from a number of things - the Garland nomination would be my Exhibit #1 as well. But I think the Senate ignoring a keep-things-afloat bill for a long time during 20+% unemployment is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I just don't see that they can ignore that. Come up with their plan? Sure, maybe. Do nothing? I just don't see it.
  #87  
Old 05-18-2020, 05:59 PM
Eva Luna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrington View Post
I'd be curious what would happen if an employee were called back to a former job, or was offered a new job, which would normally be considered "suitable work" but for the employee having a preexisting condition creating higher risk of serious complications or death if contracting COVID-19. Say, diabetes, congestive heart failure, etc.

Would it then not be considered suitable work if the employer could not/would not accommodate remote work, for example? An awful lot of people are going to fall into those categories.
  #88  
Old 05-19-2020, 12:46 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eva Luna View Post
I'd be curious what would happen if an employee were called back to a former job, or was offered a new job, which would normally be considered "suitable work" but for the employee having a preexisting condition creating higher risk of serious complications or death if contracting COVID-19. Say, diabetes, congestive heart failure, etc.

Would it then not be considered suitable work if the employer could not/would not accommodate remote work, for example? An awful lot of people are going to fall into those categories.
It's an interesting question.

An employee was able to do job X. He is laid off. While he is laid off an external event happens, and that external event causes a situation that is personal to the individual making him unable to do job X. His job is now offered to him again. He turns it down.

Is he "unavailable for work" because of a disability or has the external event caused the job to be "materially different." Employment lawyers are gonna love this one.
  #89  
Old 05-19-2020, 09:41 AM
Eva Luna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's an interesting question.

An employee was able to do job X. He is laid off. While he is laid off an external event happens, and that external event causes a situation that is personal to the individual making him unable to do job X. His job is now offered to him again. He turns it down.

Is he "unavailable for work" because of a disability or has the external event caused the job to be "materially different." Employment lawyers are gonna love this one.
If he was able to do the job pre-pandemic, and his medical condition hasn't changed, how is it a disability?

And this is of some personal interest to me - I am asthmatic and over 50, and for totally unrelated reasons I quit my job a couple of months ago, figuring that when I was ready to go back, I wouldn't have a problem finding another job (recruiters had been contacting me regularly). Of course, I didn't expect the economy to crater 2 weeks later. And who the heck knows what the job market is going to be like for employment-based immigration paralegals in the near-to-medium future?

I am not quite ready to start looking yet, but am trying to figure out the landscape of how to handle, say, a request to come for an in-person interview when things open up again, or asking what the actual workspace is like (I would NOT be thrilled about open cubes or sharing an office the size of a shoebox with another person like at my old job, etc.) I'm not disabled by a long shot (I don't even need a maintenance asthma drug under normal circumstances, and my rescue inhaler generally expires before I need to refill it), but I am also not thrilled about exposing myself to a highly communicable disease with drastic pulmonary implications.

I guess on the bright side, there will be plenty of work in the employment law arena for years to come, and employment lawyers might be more open to hiring a paralegal with a different subspecialty...
  #90  
Old 05-19-2020, 09:59 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eva Luna View Post
If he was able to do the job pre-pandemic, and his medical condition hasn't changed, how is it a disability?
Well, playing the one side...because in the "new normal" the job is open and available and the vast majority of people are physically able to do it. If the applicant is not able because of his or her health condition, then that applicant should be on partial disability and not unemployment.
  #91  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:40 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's an interesting question.

An employee was able to do job X. He is laid off. While he is laid off an external event happens, and that external event causes a situation that is personal to the individual making him unable to do job X. His job is now offered to him again. He turns it down.

Is he "unavailable for work" because of a disability or has the external event caused the job to be "materially different." Employment lawyers are gonna love this one.
The FFCRA covers this, as far as sick pay.

Quote:
Employers with 500 or fewer employees and government
entities must offer Emergency Paid Sick Leave under the
Act to all employees, regardless of how long they have
been employed by the employer. Paid sick leave applies to
employees who are unable to work (or telework) and who
meet any of the following conditions:
1. Subject to a quarantine related to COVID-19;
2. Advised to self-quarantine related to COVID-19;
They would be eligible for the 2 weeks sick pay.

Quote:
The FFCRA also allows eligible employees to take EPSL when an employee is unable to work or telework because the employee has been ďadvised by a health care provider to self-quarantineĒ due to concerns related to COVID-19. The regulations clarify that an employee may take EPSL for this reason only if a health care provider (as defined in 29 CFR ß 825.102) advises the employee to self-quarantine based on a belief that the employee:

has COVID-19,
may have COVID-19, or
is particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.
So, if they have a note from a doctor saying that they are immunodeficient, then they would get their 2 weeks sick pay.

After that, they'd have to go on regular unemployment. In Ohio, you can claim unemployment for personal illness, but I don't know how often that is granted. The one time I had an employee claim that on me, it was overturned, but this may be a different time. They may also be eligible for FML, but that would probably not cover them until things get "back to normal" (and is not mandated to be paid, in any case).
  #92  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:54 AM
Eva Luna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, playing the one side...because in the "new normal" the job is open and available and the vast majority of people are physically able to do it. If the applicant is not able because of his or her health condition, then that applicant should be on partial disability and not unemployment.
What if there are no "partial disability" benefits available to the applicant? Plenty of jobs don't offer disability benefits at all.
  #93  
Old 05-19-2020, 01:02 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I don't really disagree - I think Democrats have been shockingly bad at making political hay from a number of things - the Garland nomination would be my Exhibit #1 as well. But I think the Senate ignoring a keep-things-afloat bill for a long time during 20+% unemployment is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I just don't see that they can ignore that. Come up with their plan? Sure, maybe. Do nothing? I just don't see it.
We're running a test case as we speak, and it's not going so well.

Right now, Trump has literally NO PLAN to contain the coronavirus. None. Zip. Nada.

You'd think that would be a Big Fucking Deal, that with 90,000 American deaths and the corpses still piling up at the rate of nearly 10,000 each week, the focus on this fact would be laser-intense, that every time an Administration official appeared anywhere, they would get hounded by "what's the plan? When will you have a plan?"

But it ain't happening. Drives me nuts.

Compared to that, Mitch ignoring the coronavirus relief bill is a piece of cake. I wish that weren't true, but nobody's listening to my wishes.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-19-2020 at 01:03 PM.
  #94  
Old 05-19-2020, 02:30 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
We're running a test case as we speak, and it's not going so well.

Right now, Trump has literally NO PLAN to contain the coronavirus. None. Zip. Nada.

You'd think that would be a Big Fucking Deal, that with 90,000 American deaths and the corpses still piling up at the rate of nearly 10,000 each week, the focus on this fact would be laser-intense, that every time an Administration official appeared anywhere, they would get hounded by "what's the plan? When will you have a plan?"

But it ain't happening. Drives me nuts.

Compared to that, Mitch ignoring the coronavirus relief bill is a piece of cake. I wish that weren't true, but nobody's listening to my wishes.
Among his many flaws, Trump seems to suffer from tremendous tunnel vision. All he knows is that some protesters want to reopen now, so he tries to please them for short-term gratification. Make them happy for a few days. Who cares what comes weeks or months down the road?
  #95  
Old 05-20-2020, 04:01 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Among his many flaws, Trump seems to suffer from tremendous tunnel vision. All he knows is that some protesters want to reopen now, so he tries to please them for short-term gratification. Make them happy for a few days. Who cares what comes weeks or months down the road?
Yeah, but my post wasn't about Trump; it was about the way 95,000 deaths are not a big issue.

If one thinks the HEROES bill will get enough play for long enough to make Mitch sweat, when the growing pile of corpses hasn't found a place in the heart of our national debate - well, that makes no sense at all.
  #96  
Old Yesterday, 07:56 AM
Harrington is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eva Luna View Post
I'd be curious what would happen if an employee were called back to a former job, or was offered a new job, which would normally be considered "suitable work" but for the employee having a preexisting condition creating higher risk of serious complications or death if contracting COVID-19. Say, diabetes, congestive heart failure, etc.

Would it then not be considered suitable work if the employer could not/would not accommodate remote work, for example? An awful lot of people are going to fall into those categories.
Sorry, away for awhile. Your scenario describes someone who is beyond "general fear" of the virus and would presumably be given special consideration. The rules state "general fear." Your scenario is a genuine fear. I'm pretty sure that would be an exception. If a person is called back to work where they'd have to accept risks other than a general risk of exposure to the virus, which we all accept, that is not suitable work for them.

Last edited by Harrington; Yesterday at 07:59 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017