Impact of $600 unemployment bonus and people going back to work

[ktgrok]

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

 

I actually just came across this today, when I was looking for information on something else

https://www.wdtn.com/news/state-news/gov-dewine-confident-in-state-policy-on-elections-unemployment/

Which of course gives employees the excuse to not come back, because that sounds very much to me like they really don't want to deal with employers reporting employees for refusing.  Which, given how overwhelmed the unemployment system is, I can see why such a thing would be very low on their priority list.  

I read that as, they hope employers will be reasonable about reporting, not that they won't act on the reports they get. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Ktgrok

[MysteryJen]

My son got two calls yesterday- one, asking him back to work (restaurant) and the other from the state employment office saying he will get back pay from when he filed (March 13th). So it took that long to be processed and he hasn't actually seen any money yet. 

He is more excited about going back to work. Same with all his co-workers.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Won't employers report that the person was offered work and didn't come back? Thus making the person ineligible?

This depends upon whether the person was furloughed or laid off. 

[QueenCat]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:05 AM, PeterPan said:

Our state has an anonymous reporting system and if employees refuse to go back to work they will be reported.

All states should do this. It should be required of the employer. If exceptions should be made for an individual to keep receiving & not go back to work yet, let the UE agency determine that. By the same token, the employer should be allowed to hire a new worker if one is approved to not come back. 

[QueenCat]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Won't employers report that the person was offered work and didn't come back? Thus making the person ineligible?

I would hope so.

[Arcadia]

On 5/8/2020 at 7:22 AM, SereneHome said:

. I remember how hard it was to find people to hire back in 2008-2009 recession bc UE went on for a very long time, i.e instead of regular 6 months, you could be on it for much much longer. And while now UE is suppose to end in July, I bet it will be extended again. So.....I guess we'll see what happens. Good luck to us all 🙂

Unemployment benefits was extended to two years during the Great Recession. Young adults here grab the retail jobs that they could not get before the recession as nobody was quitting. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/distinct-possibility-temporary-layoffs-permanent-70599568

“Call it realism or pessimism, but more employers are coming to a reluctant conclusion: Many of the employees they've had to lay off in the face of the pandemic might not be returning to their old jobs anytime soon. Some large companies won't have enough customers to justify it. And some small businesses won't likely survive at all despite aid provided by the federal government.

If so, that would undercut a glimmer of hope in the brutal April jobs report the government issued Friday, in which a record-shattering 20.5 million people lost jobs: A sizable majority of the jobless — nearly 80% — characterized their loss as only temporary.

...

“For a lot of those furloughed workers, a non-trivial number will have no job to go back to, because the company they worked for will have failed or will need fewer workers than they used to," said Claudia Sahm, a former Federal Reserve economist who is now director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. 

In March, MGM Resorts let go 63,000 employees and described them as furloughed, meaning temporarily laid off. Yet this week, the company acknowledged that many of those people will become permanently laid off by Aug. 31. The hotel and casino operator didn't provide precise figures. 

“We were optimistic at the time of the initial layoff in March that we would be able to reopen quickly,” Laura Lee, head of human resources, said in a layoff notice letter to the state of Michigan. “However, we have had to reassess our reopening date, given the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

...

After the previous three recessions, the vast majority of people who were laid off lost their jobs permanently. Some were essentially replaced by new software or factory robots. In other cases, their employers folded or entered new lines of business. 

After those recessions, the unemployment rate took so long to fall back to normal levels that economists began applying a chilling label: "Jobless recoveries.”

If a substantial number of small businesses are forced into bankruptcy, a similar dynamic could emerge this time, economists warn. Most job cuts by small companies in this recession have occurred because the business has shut down, whether by government order or from lack of demand, according to research released this week by Tomaz Cajner at the Federal Reserve and seven other economists. If those companies can't reopen, those layoffs will become permanent. 

...

Even after government closure orders are lifted, many consumers won't likely be comfortable shopping, eating out or attending concerts, movies or sporting events, especially as they used to — as part of tightly seated crowds. Not until the virus is well under control can a full economic recovery likely happen, economists say. 

In the meantime, structural changes in the economy might help make many temporary layoffs permanent. It's not clear, for example, when restaurants will need anywhere near as many workers they did before the virus struck.”

[Frances]

On 5/8/2020 at 8:25 AM, Ottakee said:

But legally, according to Social Security disability law (SSI program) Roommates do NOT loose benefits and are each their own household.  Same sex couples do NOT loose benefits either.  It is if you are legally married or a couple acting like they are married.  That is my beef with it.  There was a law proposed (before COVID) that would allow people on SSI that got married the same protections as those that lived with roommates or same sex couples.

It is hard as her husband is also cognitively impaired.  Under SSI current rules they would get about $1,100 a month vs. over $1,500/month to live on.  With rent at $830 in our area plus utilities it is just not workable.  Thankfully they both are able to work part time but finances are very tight and they get $16/month in food benefits.  Before they got married my daughter got over $100 just for herself.

I’m confused by this. Are you saying that same sex couples who live together are treated differently than opposite sex couples who live together? Is it because same sex couples used to not be able to get married and the SSI rules didn’t change after SSM was legalized?

All these varying definitions of households and benefits cliffs for different programs are why some advocate for a greatly expanded EITC or UBI in place of many if our social safety net programs in order to greatly decrease the administrative costs and greatly simplify things for the recipients.

[kbutton]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:22 AM, SereneHome said:

 i didn't even make any snarky comments about my SIL getting $$ for her dead husband. 

Just an FYI for those that don't know, I believe payments for the deceased have to go back to the government. 

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I read that as, they hope employers will be reasonable about reporting, not that they won't act on the reports they get. 

Ohio has been operating on the idea that people will be reasonable--businesses asked for that, and so did the citizens. On the flip side of that reporting, employees also have been encouraged to report employers that are not providing a safe work environment, but that seems to be getting less press for some reason.

DeWine has tried to listen to both sides, and the cry to open things up has been particularly loud in my part of the state. 

They are having massive issues with the unemployment sign ups, particularly for people who own their own businesses and would not normally be eligible. 

[Bootsie]

31 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

They're supposed to, but I don't know that all companies (especially smaller) will. 

This will probably depend on the way that the state taxes companies for unemployment benefits.  Some states that is based more on a flat tax on payrolls.  Other states penalize companies that have workers who make claims by charging a higher percentage.  If a company is going to be penalized for the worker not returning to work, it will be more likely to report the recalled worker as unwilling to return to work.

[hippiemamato3]

2 hours ago, QueenCat said:

I would hope so.

Why though? It's clear that many parts of the country aren't ready to go back. Just because people are offered employment doesn't mean it's safe for them to work.

[hippiemamato3]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

Then it's up to the government if the people should still be eligible for the benefit, despite turning down work. The duty of the employer is to report it, and in most states, the employee would likely also have a duty to report it. 

And so the choice comes down to work under unsafe conditions, or starve. Interesting that anyone would think that's acceptable. 

[katilac]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:13 AM, SereneHome said:

 I hope people who are milking this will have to deal with consequences....

I try to remember that it's not an easy decision to make. For some people, that extra $600 might be the boost they need to get from behind the 8 ball - maybe it pays tuition for work certificate, maybe it pays off a medical debt. Some people may not be 'milking it' so much as they are trying to take advantage of a limited opportunity that will actually benefit society in the long run. And those who actually are trying to milk it? I try to remind myself that I wouldn't want to be in a position where $600 makes that much of a difference in my life. 

On 5/8/2020 at 9:22 AM, SereneHome said:

I promised myself that I won't go on any rants either on internet or IRL about how this stimulus package was done. i didn't even make any snarky comments about my SIL getting $$ for her dead husband. But those type of policies make me very worried about what's going to happen in "life after Covid" when it comes to economy. I remember how hard it was to find people to hire back in 2008-2009 recession bc UE went on for a very long time, i.e instead of regular 6 months, you could be on it for much much longer. And while now UE is suppose to end in July, I bet it will be extended again. So.....I guess we'll see what happens. Good luck to us all 🙂

Unemployment was extended but not enhanced. Most workers could expect to get half of their wages at best (less than half if you were a high earner). I am almost sure you are wrong about finding it hard to hire people in the middle of the Great Recession; there's a reason it earned capital letters. It's also not at all what I remember, and I would be very interested in any links that show otherwise, or show that large numbers of employees in any state had financial motivation to stay on unemployment.  

 

On 5/8/2020 at 9:59 AM, amyx4 said:

We know a college kid who got fired from his (very easy) weekend job in mid-February cause he was late 11billion times.  A parent got him the job and I think that's why it took the company so long to fire the college student.  The parents only want him to have weekend job to learn to be an adult.

He applied for unemployment mid March. He's getting his $50ish dollars in unemployment plus $600.

His college is paid for by the grandparents inheritance. His parents cover everything else.  They have not lost their comfortable incomes during this virus.

There are always weird, random outcomes in any big event. Some get a weird and good outcome, but I'd wager many more get a weird and bad outcome. And what his parents and grandparents pay for has nothing to do with unemployment. 

On 5/8/2020 at 10:38 AM, Ktgrok said:

 But better a few people get what they don't "deserve" than people not get what they need. You can't make it perfect. You either have to err on the side of a few people getting too much, or some people getting too little, or none. 

Agreed. Of course we should be always trying to perfect the system, but I'd rather some fraud squeak by over having honest people suffer. 

I also don't think there is any large number of people living large on welfare benefits; I think it is a notable exception where it does occur. Most of the 'big ticket' items in benefits are not cash or cash equivalents. I don't want to trade paying rent for living in the projects or Section 8 housing; I don't want to trade paying insurance premiums for being on Medicaid. 

On 5/8/2020 at 9:05 AM, PeterPan said:

Our state has an anonymous reporting system and if employees refuse to go back to work they will be reported.

There's something gross about a system that has a majority of high earners working safely from home while their employers work on safety plans, yet tells people to turn in their neighbors if they don't go back to their low-pay, high-risk job.  

 

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Why though? It's clear that many parts of the country aren't ready to go back. Just because people are offered employment doesn't mean it's safe for them to work.

This is where my thoughts are right now. 

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

That assumes that conditions are actually unsafe.  (which of course is really just a matter of opinion anyway.)

It's certainly not completely a matter of opinion; there are established protocols and recommendations. Whatever the precise definition of safe working conditions might be, the fact is that some jobs are inherently more high risk than others (while remaining at terribly low pay). I think that the people who are actually working high risk jobs get the heavy vote regarding them being safe or not. 

I actually find it hard to believe that some people question whether working conditions are unsafe, when employees have been going to high exposure jobs amidst crowds of people not wearing masks, etc. 

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by katilac

[PeterPan]

4 minutes ago, katilac said:

There's something gross about a system that has a majority of high earners working safely from home while their employers work on safety plans, yet tells people to turn in their neighbors if they don't go back to their low-pay, high-risk job.  

There's definitely always more sides. A balance would be possibility of employer liability if the employee gets sick, seems to me. Especially in cases of negligence. I had seen some reports on tv exploring that idea of whether employers were liable. It seems like around here employers are working very hard to innovate ways for workers to be safe.

Edited May 10, 2020 by PeterPan

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

A balance would be possibility of employer liability if the employee gets sick, seems to me. Especially in cases of negligence. 

That's mighty cold comfort to the person who dies from Covid.

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It seems like around here employers are working very hard to innovate ways for workers to be safe.

I don't doubt that many are, but I'm no less horrified at the idea of someone calling in their neighbor for not returning to their cashier's job at Kroger. 

[katilac]

27 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 Oh it absolutely is a matter of opinion.  There is actually no *objective* definition of "safe."  

When you get on a plane, do you think it's okay for that airline to use their opinion on what is safe? Or should they use the accepted definition of what is safe? Of course there is never complete agreement on every single matter of safety, but accepted protocols exist.  

[katilac]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

It's also ALWAYS....tied to costs.  IWO...it's always been "safe enough to be affordable."   Which is what those "accepted protocols" you mention really mean.  

Yes, cost plays a part in coming up with accepted safety protocols. They still exist. Airlines and manufacturers can't just decide to do what they want, because safety is a matter of opinion 🤷‍♂️

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by katilac

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

I don't doubt that many are, but I'm no less horrified at the idea of someone calling in their neighbor for not returning to their cashier's job at Kroger. 

I think it was meant to be employers reporting, not neighbors. Not sure. 

Sounds like it's as well thought out as all the rest of these things they keep rapidly implementing without the consent/debate of the legislature...

[katilac]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Except that's actually what they do.  Costs don't just "play a part"  They are one of the primary drivers.  More importantly, they are actually one of the primary drivers in the standards that manufacturers must adhere to.   Airlines and manufacturers actually help to set all those safety standards specifically in line with their overall costs.  Safety isn't the primary driver.  

Be that as it may, the standards DO exist, and no one can ignore them because they have a different opinion.

[hippiemamato3]

3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

That assumes that conditions are actually unsafe.  (which of course is really just a matter of opinion anyway.)

Haha

[Teresa in MO]

What I find unfair is if you were say a restaurant worker that got laid off and is collecting around $900 a week unemployment vs.  an "essential" grocery store clerk who is definitely not laid off and working probably extra hours is only making half of that.  And the grocery store clerk is the one being exposed over and over probably.  I have 2 sons and one son-in-law who work in grocery stores and while their employers will give them a leave if they are uncomfortable working it is unpaid, plus they have to pay for the portion of their health insurance that the company was paying.  They cannot file for unemployment for taking a voluntary leave.  You have 18 year olds collecting almost $4000 a month unemployment.  That is almost more than my late dh brought in when he passed.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Teresa in MO

[SereneHome]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

I try to remember that it's not an easy decision to make. For some people, that extra $600 might be the boost they need to get from behind the 8 ball - maybe it pays tuition for work certificate, maybe it pays off a medical debt. Some people may not be 'milking it' so much as they are trying to take advantage of a limited opportunity that will actually benefit society in the long run. And those who actually are trying to milk it? I try to remind myself that I wouldn't want to be in a position where $600 makes that much of a difference in my life. 

Unemployment was extended but not enhanced. Most workers could expect to get half of their wages at best (less than half if you were a high earner). I am almost sure you are wrong about finding it hard to hire people in the middle of the Great Recession; there's a reason it earned capital letters. It's also not at all what I remember, and I would be very interested in any links that show otherwise, or show that large numbers of employees in any state had financial motivation to stay on unemployment.  

 

 

I am not sure what kind of links you would find. If someone lost a job in 2008 (I did, I was working the mortgage industry) and the collected UE instead of looking for a job - where exactly would it be "recorded"?

I can give you all kinds of anecdotal "evidence", but that really means nothing.

But what's going on right now is entirely different. On one side you have employees who are able to collect additional $4200 / mo - that's a huge incentive to stay home. And on another side you have employers who collected PPP loans. Stipulation for PPP loan that if it spend on payroll, it doesn't have to be paid back. Sooooo....employers want to hire but people might not want to go back to work.  So this should be interesting....

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I am not sure what kind of links you would find. If someone lost a job in 2008 (I did, I was working the mortgage industry) and the collected UE instead of looking for a job - where exactly would it be "recorded"?

I can give you all kinds of anecdotal "evidence", but that really means nothing.

But what's going on right now is entirely different. On one side you have employees who are able to collect additional $4200 / mo - that's a huge incentive to stay home. And on another side you have employers who collected PPP loans. Stipulation for PPP loan that if it spend on payroll, it doesn't have to be paid back. Sooooo....employers want to hire but people might not want to go back to work.  So this should be interesting....

"Extended UI benefits in the aftermath of the Great Recession raised the average duration of unemployment by 7 percent and caused the unemployment rate to increase by 0.4 percentage points."  https://www.nber.org/papers/w19048  General economic theory suggests that increased unemployment benefits discourage some workers from job searches and increases the length of time they are unemployed.  This is one research by the National Bureau of Economic Research that finds empirical evidence that backs that theory.

[Ottakee]

5 hours ago, Frances said:

I’m confused by this. Are you saying that same sex couples who live together are treated differently than opposite sex couples who live together? Is it because same sex couples used to not be able to get married and the SSI rules didn’t change after SSM was legalized?

All these varying definitions of households and benefits cliffs for different programs are why some advocate for a greatly expanded EITC or UBI in place of many if our social safety net programs in order to greatly decrease the administrative costs and greatly simplify things for the recipients.

That is exactly it.  If the same sex couple does get legally married then they count as married.  Some of the SAI rules (such as how much they can have in the bank....still stuck at $2000) has not changed in almost 40 years.  

I agree.  We need a simpler system that encourages those with special needs to work part time but still be assured they can live in a modest apartment or small home and pay the utilities and eat.

 

 

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

That is exactly it.  If the same sex couple does get legally married then they count as married.  Some of the SAI rules (such as how much they can have in the bank....still stuck at $2000) has not changed in almost 40 years.  

I agree.  We need a simpler system that encourages those with special needs to work part time but still be assured they can live in a modest apartment or small home and pay the utilities and eat.

 

 

Do your children qualify for ABLE accounts? While it doesn’t help with the benefits cliffs and convoluted rules, it does allow for savings to accumulate.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Be that as it may, the standards DO exist, and no one can ignore them because they have a different opinion.

Well, but standards are always going to be based on costs and benefits. And which standards? Set by whom?

When you look at a place like NYC which bore the brunt of the US outbreak so far, the cost of using the subway was really high, but it was left open as "safe enough because we need it." Same with putting infected Covid patients back into nursing homes. That was ordered by the government as standard. Was it safe? Well, safe enough as a standard set by the government on how to operate those care homes.

So, safety standards, whomever sets them, are always governed by a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes risks are very much ignored because the benefit is deemed higher than the potential costs. And sometimes, the benefits are ignored because the cost seems on its face to be high and then we find out later we were missing a piece of the puzzle.

And it's not as if those setting the standards that you are talking about are infallible or maybe not even particularly more knowledgeable than some of the people that simply read a lot of medical literature. We'd like to think they are, but oftentimes it's a bureaucrat with little knowledge or quickly acquired knowledge, or a politician who makes the choice to override the recommendation of public health officials because of the practicalities involved.

And especially now with this thing, standards change over time. I'm absolutely going to ignore a standard that I know to be scientifically unsound.

Edited May 10, 2020 by EmseB

[Ottakee]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

Do your children qualify for ABLE accounts? While it doesn’t help with the benefits cliffs and convoluted rules, it does allow for savings to accumulate.

They could and we might end up doing that.  There are yearly flat fees involved with those accounts and I am not sure they have enough money to make it worth it at this point.

[DawnM]

Yup.  My friend's daughter was making (roughly) $600/mo after taxes.  Her weekly unemployment is now $600.  She is wanting to keep it as long as possible!

[hippiemamato3]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

Yup.  My friend's daughter was making (roughly) $600/mo after taxes.  Her weekly unemployment is now $600.  She is wanting to keep it as long as possible!

 

I don't blame her. Who would?

 

[Ottakee]

28 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

 

I don't blame her. Who would?

 

I agree.  For the very low income, this can be life changing to have an extra $2400/month.  I am not really a socialist, but a minimum basic income would raise a lot of people out of poverty and give them options.  It would eliminate much of the bureaucracy we call social services (food stamps, cash benefits, housing benefits, day care benefits, disability, etc) and the related costs to keeping all of those programs running.  Money provides choice and power.  Yes, some would abuse the system, but I think that if many that knew their basic needs would be met would be much more willing to take risks, try new things, go to school, etc.   As the system sits now, if you make just a bit too much you lose so much which makes it so risky to try to better yourself as there is a big gap/cliff there if benefits suddenly disappeared. 

I see this so often with people with disabilities (physical and cognitive).  If they try to work to better themselves they lose out on so much that they have to ride that fine line between working as much as they can with out lose benefits but not going over the line by even a few dollars and risk losing everything.

[hopeallgoeswell]

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from? 

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from? 

State unemployment benefits should be funded through state unemployment insurance programs.

The federal bonus for unemployment and the business loans are being funded by federal government deficit spending.  The US government is borrowing money today, which means taxes in the future will have to be collected to pay for this. 

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from? 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-unemployment-the-last-time-edd-jobless-fund-went-broke-taxes-jumped/
“California is borrowing money to keep paying unemployment claims ushered in by a feeble job market infected by the coronavirus, state officials have confirmed.

It’s not clear how California might repay the federal government for the money it is borrowing — or how much money the state will require — but the last time the state had to borrow to keep the unemployment insurance fund afloat, tax costs for businesses rose.

It’s a dreary scenario, but one with a precedent triggered by the last recession: A trust fund supervised by the state’s Employment Development Department, or EDD, runs out of money to pay a rising tide of unemployment claims. That, in turn, forces cash-strapped California to borrow from the U.S. government to keep the jobless fund afloat and capable of making payments to displaced workers.”

[Frances]

On 5/10/2020 at 2:59 PM, Teresa in MO said:

What I find unfair is if you were say a restaurant worker that got laid off and is collecting around $900 a week unemployment vs.  an "essential" grocery store clerk who is definitely not laid off and working probably extra hours is only making half of that.  And the grocery store clerk is the one being exposed over and over probably.  I have 2 sons and one son-in-law who work in grocery stores and while their employers will give them a leave if they are uncomfortable working it is unpaid, plus they have to pay for the portion of their health insurance that the company was paying.  They cannot file for unemployment for taking a voluntary leave.  You have 18 year olds collecting almost $4000 a month unemployment.  That is almost more than my late dh brought in when he passed.

At least here, restaurant servers would generally make significantly more money than a grocery store clerk, but the grocery store employee would likely have better benefits. Here servers are paid minimum wage (one of the highest in the nation) plus tips. My son knows young adults who make close to six figures being servers in our largest city. 

[Teresa in MO]

5 hours ago, Frances said:

At least here, restaurant servers would generally make significantly more money than a grocery store clerk, but the grocery store employee would likely have better benefits. Here servers are paid minimum wage (one of the highest in the nation) plus tips. My son knows young adults who make close to six figures being servers in our largest city. 

I was not really talking about restaurant servers, but more like fast food.  Even though they are open for drive thru not all workers were needed or kept.  A better example would be a worker at a department store that was closed or the 18 year old library shelving clerk.  

[PeterPan]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm reading news stories saying that for the Paycheck Protection Program loans to be forgiven, the business maintain the number of employees they had before the shut down. So that's going to be another driver here, because workers will lose their UE if not willing to return assuming reasonable changes have been made and employers are motivated to FIRE if they don't get those employees back so they can rehire. 

https://www.nbc4i.com/community/health/coronavirus/as-ohio-reopens-workers-have-rights-as-they-return-to-work/

And then this article makes the interesting point that if someone feels strongly about not wearing a mask, they're screwed for returning to work as masks are mandated for employees except in rare cases. https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ohio-masks-mandatory-recommended-retail-open-coronavirus-order/3098855001/  So this will continue to get interesting, if 50% of the people in my area (not where this news article is from btw) are not wearing masks but then are going to be compelled to to return to work. On the other hand, we could have a demographic where a percentage of non mask wearers also don't work. (retired, stay at home, whatever). Still, interesting. It's a mind control experiment in a way. And when does it END? When do they either accept a certain level of sickness (like they do the flu) or get the numbers low enough (with their infamous contact tracing) that they can tell workers they don't HAVE to wear masks? Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work. So it's nice for a politician, not so nice for everyone else. But how long is this going to go on? Could be the next tipping point. People who feel they're being made sick or harmed by the mask mandate are going to lose tolerance for it.

Edited May 12, 2020 by PeterPan

[TechWife]

On 5/8/2020 at 8:07 AM, Ottakee said:

How will the $600 unemployment bonus affect people going back to work?

My state is opening up manufacturing next week.   That means many people will be going back to work (but governor gave lots of exemptions for workers).  Most manufacturing jobs in my area pay $12-16/hour.   Unemployment is now paying around $24/hour.  That means people that do go back to work will be making far less money now.  Then add in child care costs and travel expenses and this could be a big financial hit to them.

Similarly, so many of the essential workers that have been working all along are earning maybe 1/2 of what they would on unemployment.

I know, personally, I am earning far less working in education than I would be on unemployment.

A couple of thoughts, because sometimes things strike me differently than others. 

First, this bonus is temporary and was put in place partly to encourage people to stay home. When it runs out it is unlikely to get extended in its current form. 

Second, going back to work isn’t really a financial hit. It is a return to the status quo. While I agree too many people are underpaid, going back to work and it’s accompanying expenses and benefits is something that the people involved are normally managing. If they are unable to secure child care as a direct result of the limitations (school aged children for example) then staying home and drawing unemployment until the school year would normally end is a legitimate thing to do. I believe most, of not all, states are allowing this. 

Third, there is a point at which a person becomes willingly unemployed - for example if they are called back to work and just decide not to go back, Those folks will no longer qualify for unemployment and the $600 is irrelevant. 

Fourth, this may be pie in the sky thinking, but the general public has gained a new awareness of the relatively low pay many receive. Hopefully this will mean that there will be an overall push towards changes in compensation. 

[vonfirmath]

20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

A couple of thoughts, because sometimes things strike me differently than others. 

First, this bonus is temporary and was put in place partly to encourage people to stay home. When it runs out it is unlikely to get extended in its current form. 

Second, going back to work isn’t really a financial hit. It is a return to the status quo. While I agree too many people are underpaid, going back to work and it’s accompanying expenses and benefits is something that the people involved are normally managing. If they are unable to secure child care as a direct result of the limitations (school aged children for example) then staying home and drawing unemployment until the school year would normally end is a legitimate thing to do. I believe most, of not all, states are allowing this. 

 

Note that a lot of the camps people use for childcare during the summer have also already been cancelled.

[Arcadia]

6 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

Note that a lot of the camps people use for childcare during the summer have also already been cancelled.

Summer camps and childcare are allowed to operate here for working parents who are working outside their homes. Childcare was never closed during shelter in place because essential workers need childcare. YMCA open up childcare for essential workers since the demand is there. 

[vonfirmath]

8 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Summer camps and childcare are allowed to operate here for working parents who are working outside their homes. Childcare was never closed during shelter in place because essential workers need childcare. YMCA open up childcare for essential workers since the demand is there. 

They may be allowed to operate. But in many cases they are choosing not to (or have not opened up registration yet)  Our normal summer camps is still saying they are evaluating the possibilities.

 

[Arcadia]

5 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

 Our normal summer camps is still saying they are evaluating the possibilities.

 

Our normal summer camps aren’t allowed to operate yet. Only those for parents working outside their homes. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm reading news stories saying that for the Paycheck Protection Program loans to be forgiven, the business maintain the number of employees they had before the shut down. So that's going to be another driver here, because workers will lose their UE if not willing to return assuming reasonable changes have been made and employers are motivated to FIRE if they don't get those employees back so they can rehire. 

https://www.nbc4i.com/community/health/coronavirus/as-ohio-reopens-workers-have-rights-as-they-return-to-work/

And then this article makes the interesting point that if someone feels strongly about not wearing a mask, they're screwed for returning to work as masks are mandated for employees except in rare cases. https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ohio-masks-mandatory-recommended-retail-open-coronavirus-order/3098855001/  So this will continue to get interesting, if 50% of the people in my area (not where this news article is from btw) are not wearing masks but then are going to be compelled to to return to work. On the other hand, we could have a demographic where a percentage of non mask wearers also don't work. (retired, stay at home, whatever). Still, interesting. It's a mind control experiment in a way. And when does it END? When do they either accept a certain level of sickness (like they do the flu) or get the numbers low enough (with their infamous contact tracing) that they can tell workers they don't HAVE to wear masks? Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work. So it's nice for a politician, not so nice for everyone else. But how long is this going to go on? Could be the next tipping point. People who feel they're being made sick or harmed by the mask mandate are going to lose tolerance for it.

In many places, healthcare workers have already dealt with this for years. Either get a flu vaccine or wear a mask during the entire flu season. And how in the world is it a mind control experiment?

[vonfirmath]

15 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Our normal summer camps aren’t allowed to operate yet. Only those for parents working outside their homes. 

These are the camps that normally serve parents working outside the homes. (Keep kids all day, provide various sorts of activities).

 

[Arcadia]

22 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

These are the camps that normally serve parents working outside the homes. (Keep kids all day, provide various sorts of activities).

I understand. However now these camps are not open to all public. I can’t send my kids but my paramedic neighbors can send their kids. So there is no point in open registration since it’s not open to all. 

[katilac]

3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work.  

I read the article and think this is a huge overreach.

The closest to an actual sickness complaint that I see is the person who says workers breathe in too much CO2 over the ten hours they wear the mask provided by their company. This can give you headaches but is very unlikely to cause any kind of actual sickness. We know this because healthcare workers deal with it all the time. 

People deal with intrusive requirements all the time based on safety protocols at work. You may work in a refinery and be unable to have a full beard, because it interferes with the fit of the mask you need to put on in an emergency. My dh had to shave part of his facial hair just for a visit, he doesn't even work there! But those are the rules, and he wants to sell to them, so there ya go. He has the freedom to refuse to do it, and they have the freedom to refuse him entry. 

If people feel so strongly about having to wear a mask that they refuse to do so, that's their decision to make. It will come with both good and bad consequences like any decision. I have asthma and severe allergies and I do get the 'this mask is suffocating me' feeling. It would be extremely difficult for me to keep a mask on all day. The difference is that I regard that as my problem to solve. I suck it up or I work elsewhere. So many people want to scream about liberty and freedom and independence, without seeing the irony of wanting someone else to solve the problems they have in wearing masks. 

 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

In many places, healthcare workers have already dealt with this for years. Either get a flu vaccine or wear a mask during the entire flu season. And how in the world is it a mind control experiment?

 

Actually hospital employees have to keep all of their immunizations up to date, including the flu vaccine as a condition of their employment. No vaccines, no job. 

However your point stands because there are many scenarios in which employees are required to wear masks and it’s just part of the job. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by TechWife

[Arcadia]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

I have asthma and severe allergies and I do get the 'this mask is suffocating me' feeling. It would be extremely difficult for me to keep a mask on all day. The difference is that I regard that as my problem to solve. I suck it up or I work elsewhere.

I switched from civil engineering as a career to computer science because of asthma. My kids are opting for computer science as major for similar reasons. My mom quit her nurse job because of bronchitis that was probably acquired at her urgent care workplace. Luckily my parents did not need my mom’s income by then as the mortgage was already paid off. 

I think that people who have health difficulties with mask would have to gravitate to home based work for the short term or permanently, like Etsy shops, tutoring online, work from home medical billing.

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Well, we paid for the last couple of decades of war with a credit card, and still managed to give certain people massive tax breaks and everything was hunky dory, so why be concerned with this??

Because of the vastly reduced tax revenues and rapidly contracting economy, I would think. There was no government or virus mandated economic shutdown during those other things you mentioned.

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Well, we paid for the last couple of decades of war with a credit card, and still managed to give certain people massive tax breaks and everything was hunky dory, so why be concerned with this??

First, I would disagree that everything was hunky dory.  But irresponsible spending during one time period doesn't change the economic reality of what happens when there is more borrowing to pay for even more spending in a future time period.  

[LucyStoner]

My brother is one of the people getting more on UI than he usually earns.  He earns about $18/hr but works 32.5 hours a week (paraeducator/instructional assistant/teaching assistant for sped students).  
 

They could have made the $600 add’l weekly amount an “up to” payment that added up to $600, for a total of no more than 90-100% of your average weekly wage but that would cost more money to administer and slow down the distribution of payments.  
 

He can’t go back to work until September but the extra amount stops in July.  He has a child at high risk and he himself is disabled so I think it’s great he’s able to stay home and not have to go and get a high risk job somewhere.  
 

The social safety network is so feeble and has screwed him over more times than not, so honestly, I don’t think it’s a problem that for once it’s working out in low income people’s favor.  I do not resent that I am still working at my regular billing rates (and clients are slower to pay) just because some folks who don’t enjoy the privilege I have (able to work from home, self employed, much higher than the median income) are getting a bit extra in UI.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by LucyStoner