I think the reason they had to add that question in the FAQ is because lots of people were saying that that was their situation, while it actually wasn't.
I don't have actual data, which is obviously not a great position to be in, in a discussion, but I saw a TON of stories from restaurant owners who could not open solely because all the employees left since they made better money by not working.
Or they added it because a lot of people like you have misconceptions. Either way they would be rejected applying for unemployment.
I’ve seen restaurant owners saying they can’t hire people, I haven’t seen restaurant owners saying people quit for unemployment. If it’s the case that the restaurant furloughed or laid off people I don’t see why they expect the state to intervene to help them. Socialism for me, but not for thee?
I don't have opinion either way, just saying it might have looked to op they just quit without cause and still collected unemployment benefits, since these reasons are not usually considered causes , op may not have understood it well.
I don't have actual data, which is obviously not a great position to be in, in a discussion, but I saw a TON of stories from restaurant owners who could not open solely because all the employees left since they made better money by not working.