Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours ago, candyman93 said:

Things will be opened up in May. Not sure if that’s the right call, but it’s gonna happen.

"And we'd like a brandy!!!!"

[candyman93]

39 minutes ago, sdrawkcab321 said:

It better or I’m getting laid off.

What field do you work in...?

[Shanedorf]

I can't see employers taking on the liability of people coming back to work while this is still in the danger zone
If YOU get ME sick because OUR employer called us in, who's responsible for my unfortunate demise ?
The lawyers are probably writing lawsuits as we speak -  because OSHA says you have to provide a safe working environment
And no employer could pass that test in May of 2020

[dtait93]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

I can't see employers taking on the liability of people coming back to work while this is still in the danger zone
If YOU get ME sick because OUR employer called us in, who's responsible for my unfortunate demise ?
The lawyers are probably writing lawsuits as we speak -  because OSHA says you have to provide a safe working environment
And no employer could pass that test in May of 2020

Would it really be that hard for businesses to write up a, "COVID-19 Safety Module" to cover their sixes if non-essential businesses are allowed to open by then?

[Shanedorf]

2 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Would it really be that hard for businesses to write up a, "COVID-19 Safety Module" to cover their sixes if non-essential businesses are allowed to open by then?

Written words aren't going to stop the spread of disease and we can't even get people to follow the written words right now
What magic is going to happen in May that changes anything ?
I'm not understanding how any written policy prevents people from getting a serious infectious disease ? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Safety Module ?
Suppression is the best tool we have now and it will still be the best tool we have 30 days from now.

[dtait93]

3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Written words aren't going to stop the spread of disease and we can't even get people to follow the written words right now
What magic is going to happen in May that changes anything ?
I'm not understanding how any written policy prevents people from getting a serious infectious disease ? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Safety Module ?
Suppression is the best tool we have now and it will still be the best tool we have 30 days from now.

Well first of all, why would it be the employers fault if their employees get sick if the state/local governments deem it safe for people to start returning to work?

[Shanedorf]

State and local health authorities won't make that statement until it is actually  "safe to return" and unfortunately that won't be in May of 2020.
That's a major statement to make and with that statement comes major responsibility.
No MD or health authority is going to sign off on it 3 weeks from today. I guess if you could quarantine the entire work force and tell them they cannot go home and you were completely cutoff from all outside contacts. Otherwise, its a non-starter. Its a royal bummer for everybody

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

The $1200 was never meant to save anyone

It was meant to bridge some gaps in income, which will be needed again if they want things to stay closed.

[dtait93]

8 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

State and local health authorities won't make that statement until it is actually  "safe to return" and unfortunately that won't be in May of 2020.
That's a major statement to make and with that statement comes major responsibility.
No MD or health authority is going to sign off on it 3 weeks from today. I guess if you could quarantine the entire work force and tell them they cannot go home and you were completely cutoff from all outside contacts. Otherwise, its a non-starter. Its a royal bummer for everybody

I agree with you, but in the scenario they do (whenever that is) employers aren't going to be the ones responsible for their employees contracting the virus. And if for whatever reason they are fearful of a lawsuit it wouldn't be hard for them to consult with a firm to come up with something to cover their rears.

[Shanedorf]

12 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

It was meant to bridge some gaps in income, which will be needed again if they want things to stay closed.

2 trillion nets out at about $6500 / person in US. But that's assuming everybody passes the means testing, which they won't
And kids get less, so at least $ 10-15k per household is available in the imaginary world where the money goes to people instead of corporations

[Shanedorf]

7 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

it wouldn't be hard for them to consult with a firm to come up with something to cover their rears.

Yes, and they are probably working on that language as we speak.
When you go back to work, you might have to sign a waiver of your rights to sue or be out of a job.
That's really being stuck between a rock and a hard place -  and for some people they'll have no choice but to accept the increased risk.

[dtait93]

26 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Yes, and they are probably working on that language as we speak.
When you go back to work, you might have to sign a waiver of your rights to sue or be out of a job.

Unfortunately I know this all too well. Hope it doesn't resort to this.

[mission27]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

I can't see employers taking on the liability of people coming back to work while this is still in the danger zone
If YOU get ME sick because OUR employer called us in, who's responsible for my unfortunate demise ?
The lawyers are probably writing lawsuits as we speak -  because OSHA says you have to provide a safe working environment
And no employer could pass that test in May of 2020

This is going to be a risk to people until there is vaccine, and there may never be a vaccine for all we know, lockdown forever is not an option for society or for businesses and yet would be the only option based on that standard 

The lockdown is not about preventing any individual from getting sick or eradicating the disease, its about preventing out of control exponential growth and catastrophic failure of the health care system.  Once we have that covered, the justification for the lockdown goes away, and I think individuals should be allowed and expected to go back to their lives

People are going to be expected to go back to work and employers should not be held responsible for someone who happens to catch a seasonal respiratory infection on the job any more so than they would be for cold or flu.  We are all in this together and we are all going to be asked to accept some degree of risk in the near future so that we can go back to our lives

[mission27]

49 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

2 trillion nets out at about $6500 / person in US. But that's assuming everybody passes the means testing, which they won't
And kids get less, so at least $ 10-15k per household is available in the imaginary world where the money goes to people instead of corporations

So you get $6500 instead of $1200 today, great

And then your employer who happens to be Boeing or Marriott or American Airlines or a bar or restaurant or basically any small business in America goes belly up and you're out of a job and suddenly looking for a new one in a month or two, only instead of doing so in a great job market, you're doing so in the middle of a great depression 

And American consumers suddenly have far fewer options when traveling or going out to eat and the GDP of the United States contracts by 15% or 20% and China's suddenly pulling way ahead in the geopolitical race and god knows what the other knock on effects of another great depression are, last time it didn't turn out so well

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 hours ago, mission27 said:

So you get $6500 instead of $1200 today, great

And then your employer who happens to be Boeing or Marriott or American Airlines or a bar or restaurant or basically any small business in America goes belly up and you're out of a job and suddenly looking for a new one in a month or two, only instead of doing so in a great job market, you're doing so in the middle of a great depression 

And American consumers suddenly have far fewer options when traveling or going out to eat and the GDP of the United States contracts by 15% or 20% and China's suddenly pulling way ahead in the geopolitical race and god knows what the other knock on effects of another great depression are, last time it didn't turn out so well

 

So at what point are the companies expected to be able to survive a couple months without a bailout?

It’s ok for them to pump up their stock price with buybacks for years, while responsible companies are sitting on mountains of cash? 
(You know, the cash they’re not paying in taxes. https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/amazon-netflix-delta-air-lines-salesforce-can-you-guess-which-company-paid-least-taxes-in-2019-the-eye-opening-answer-will-surprise-you.html)

These aren’t some poor, down on his luck schlub who can’t make ends meet.  These are billion dollar corporations that allocate money terribly. 

It’s just such a fascinating thing to watch these companies pillage and plunder when times are good and then IMMEDIATELY start shaking their cup when times get lean all because we’ve allowed them to grow so big it’s somehow inconceivable we let them fail.

Maybe you let some of these companies die.  Maybe it’s overdue. Maybe it’s time for a better business model and more responsible leadership at the top.  

Maybe it’s time we apply the same logic to corporations that we do individuals.  Just as we aren’t sending stimulus checks to millionaires, maybe we focus a little more on the small businesses?

The issues you’re describing aren’t solely because of COVID and the associated impact on the income of these companies.  

I’ll leave it at that and won’t respond further as I don’t want to take this thread off the rail.  I tried to keep this relevant to COVID, but if it’s too political I apologize and the mods/Webby are free to delete it.