[paxys]

It doesn't matter if you're still employed on paper. If you aren't getting paid (or even if you get a substantial paycut) you qualify for unemployment benefits.

The tricky part is if you're willingly not working. "Staying at home because of COVID" is a valid reason that some state governments are accepting.

[koheripbal]

No gov't in the country would question those unemployment benefits though, these days. So it's safe for them to file and collect.

[cbanek]

That doesn't seem true:

https://labor.vermont.gov/unemployment-insurance/refusal-ret...

I believe there was also an HN submission about a group of states doing these types of things to force people back to work even if they feel scared of catching the virus, or giving up their unemployment benefits, though I can't find it now, so Vermont isn't the only state doing this.

[koheripbal]

That _obviously_ does not include going back to work in violation of a public health order.

[ncallaway]

That's not exactly true. Some states reopening (like GA) no longer consider a covid absence to still be eligible to receive benefits.

I think those still have exceptions for high risk individuals.

[teruakohatu]

In this case, the country is preventing them from working under I presume the threat of arrest and/or fines. Surely is a good enough reason.