[1]https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
Though suggesting that Musk's "human rights" are being violated through closure of his car factory in the middle of a pandemic is making a complete joke out of both his argument and out of the concept of human rights.
Anyway, I would think that being unable to open your own factory while your competitors are allowed to be open when you have done nothing wrong, would be quite "unjust and unfavorable". I mean it isn't like he can conduct this type of business from home instead.
Edit:
Here is the full sentence according to Article 23 from the Universal Declaration of Human rights:
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [1]
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/en...
And just in case you're going to ask what proximity has to do with the matter of justice, it is because as his competitor's factories are located elsewhere than Alameda they fall under different jurisdiction, do his competitors ever have any regulation based on where they are located that they can then refuse to obey because Tesla's Alameda factory doesn't have to do it that way?
If there is unfairness here it is of the same sort of unfairness engendered by the world being a large globe with different climates, countries, governments, currencies, and cultures and where you choose to place your factory means your natural greatness of being must be hampered by the base restrictions of existence.
"Right to work" has a completely different meaning than "Right to work in just and favourable conditions".
The latter refers to the fact that IF you are working then it should be in a safe environment not that you have the right to work at all.
Here it is in full form under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [1]
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/en...
This nicely illustrates the folly of trying to reason about a situation from a pithy statement of some cherry-picked "right." Are we violating the "right to work"[1] of young children when we forbid them from quitting school getting a a factory job? Maybe, but it's pretty obvious that overriding factors are more important in that case. It's the same when we consider an employer who wants to "to work" employing his employees in conditions that some may consider unsafe.
I'm not sure what point that's meant to make, but it supports what I was saying. You'd never be able to derive that exception from:
>>> Well, the UN definition of "Human Rights" includes the "right to work"[1].
There's loads of different competing rights, exceptions to those rights, and other social practices that need to be weighed to make a judgement a situation like this. Focusing too closely on reasoning about this one "right to work" ignores all that, and thus leads to less than enlightening conclusions.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#The_C...
Your first example is also impacted by this. General advocacy of violence was upheld as constitutionally protected speech, it's very unlikely that hate speech could ever meet the brandenburg test.
That's not to say that your point about one person's right to work vs another person's right to live is wrong. In fact, I think the court would likely agree with you on that matter. I just think your first couple of examples are flawed.