Replies

Farcesensitive: The legislature SHOULD ban businesses from requiring the frankenshot and she SHOULD sign it.

xone: Perhaps they will. I can see you are in line for the gov’t running your business.

Sorry, I misread “running your business” as “ruining your business”, my mistake. But the idea that preventing businesses from mandating vaxes is the same as “running your business” is just as specious.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3988004/posts?page=1600#1600

And your new reply:

Again wrong. Businesses can make you make decisions you might not otherwise make to stay employed with them. There is no force. As noted in an earlier comment a poster worked for a company that treated its people like crap. But they paid well. So in the calculus better money was worth being treated as crap. Is taking the jab worth the dough> I’d say no. So I’d drag it out get fired at the worst time for them. Take UI and see if I have an action against them for wrongful termination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, specious. Businesses may indeed require a uniform, certain kind of haircut, night shifts, special training, on call on weekends - all kinds of things people might prefer not to do. But requiring a vax in order to work is not in the same category, it is violating constitutional rights. And your argument that people who don’t want to get vaxxed and would prefer not to get fired or quit are all about $$$, you are wrong. Did you hear the firefighter captain in LA? Or the one in Hi? Or the perfusionist or other medics? They love their jobs for one thing, and for another thing, there may often not be another similar job where they are. So they’d need to sell their house, move to another city/county/state, start all over again, and maybe that business or fire department or hospital will also decide “vax up or get fired”.

Mandatory vaccination policies are nothing new. For decades, schools have required students to receive certain vaccinations in order to attend. And healthcare facilities have long imposed vaccination requirements on doctors, nurses, and other staff. Still, mandatory vaccination policies aren’t the norm in most other employment contexts. That might change with the arrival of a COVID-19 vaccine.

While the law is clear that employers can generally require vaccination, it’s a legitimate question as to whether a mandatory vaccination policy is a good idea for all employers.

Employer’s Duty to Keep the Workplace Safe

The idea of an employer instituting a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy presents some complex issues, both legally and with workplace morale.

On the one hand, employees might legitimately question whether a COVID-19 vaccine is safe, particularly if they have underlying health conditions. Others might simply be opposed to taking any type of vaccine whatsoever.

On the other hand, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and similar state laws require employers to keep the workplace free of hazards and dangerous conditions. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also provides employees with legal remedies when the workplace is unsafe.

In the end, employers might feel like they’re stuck between a rock and hard place. Forcing employees to take a vaccine will not be a popular choice in all cases, but employers might feel compelled to do so as part of their legal duty to keep the workplace safe.

Like many issues that arise in the workplace, communication is key. If your employer institutes a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy, you should make sure you express any concerns to your supervisor or human resources department.

Your argument will be stronger if it is based on a:

medical disability, or
sincerely held religious belief.

However, a legitimate fear for your safety could also work in your favor given that the workplace would be disrupted if enough employees have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In theory, a vaccine that proves to be inadequate or creates health risks could lead to workers’ compensation claims and make a mandatory vaccination policy more trouble for your employer than it is worth.
...

Did you hear the firefighter captain in LA? Or the one in Hi? Or the perfusionist or other medics? They love their jobs for one thing, and for another thing, there may often not be another similar job where they are. So they’d need to sell their house, move to another city/county/state, start all over again, and maybe that business or fire department or hospital will also decide “vax up or get fired”.

Or their companies wise up and drop the requirements. The profusionist's absence takes the hospital down. Which is the point, say no. The dopes in charge will have to recalibrate their plans when critical workers don't go along with their nonsense. And that guy would have a job at a competing hospital in a second.

No one unless you own the company owns their job. But people bound together can change this crap if a business desires remaining one. WWG1WGA ring a bell? Class action lawsuits can be quite effective?

We are talking past each other, I'm done with this particularly because no one in SDak has been confronted with this choice that I'm aware of.

You both may be saying the same thing. Businesses can absolutely require employees to do certain things in order to work there (buy safety gear, work variable hours, etc.). They’re conditions of employment and the prospective employee knows them before they agree to the employment terms.

However, employers can’t make any conditions of employment that violate a person’s civil, legal or constitutional rights, so the question should be “Does requiring the jab violate any of these universal human rights?” A new law may not be required, just an enforcement of the existing laws that protect or guarantee a person’s bodily integrity.