The reason why companies love the mandates is because it saves compensation. The flip side would be to pay workers higher amounts to get a vaxx. Or, pay a worker higher to get branded. People would take the money or tacos.
Posted on 01/07/2022 2:09:38 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Since the year end ends next DEC, I would say that anyone who signs this paper is retarded.
“Companies should be able to fire and hire.”
In the modern world, they should also expect to have to pay for unemployment compensation for up to the standard time period.
The Pfizer EUA packaged adult dose vaccine would probably have past its expiration date.
“by Jan. 14”
Forcing employees to get the J&J one-shot vaccine carries the typically higher risk of that vaccine.
“But.. But... They are so handy! I only have to click two buttons instead of three like the competitors!”
Personal self interest and outright laziness will rule out a boycott that is actually effective.
No one will do what should be done and go make the effort to move all their banking elsewhere. Even though there could even be an advantage of refinancing somewhere else.
Just too lazy to even try to stand on principle and actually make a difference in mass.
“Don’t bother me right now... I might think about it after the ball game is over”.
In a market the workers who were fired would be replaced by people who don’t mind the vaxx. That’s how it should be. One should fire and hire with free reign. Now, you can’t look at someone without them complaining and lawsuits. The push back against companies abilities to hire and fire will completely destroy any future workforce.
Do you really think a company should be able to demand that you cut off the tip of your pinky, and if you refuse they can fire you without consequences?
That is a different world than employment at will (which I agree with in principle) in my book.
In a market the workers who were fired would be replaced by people who don’t mind the vaxx. That’s how it should be. One should fire and hire with free reign. Now, you can’t look at someone without them complaining and lawsuits.
—
Suppose a company decided to fire all smokers, or anyone who drinks alcohol. Or anyone morbidly obese who refuses to lose weight. Or someone who eats meat. It’s a slippery slope.
Amen. A very rare sentiment these days. Thank you.
I’m waiting to see on Monday if my employer tries something similar. I’m going to laugh in their face, rip it up, and walk out.
Yes. But, 99.9% of companies don't need or require that. We live in a market where we pay millions of dollars to men to run into each other while wearing equipment. That's almost the same thing. A coach should be able to fire someone who doesn't want to go across the linebackers. Someone will want that job, and replace the fired receiver.
I think you are out of touch with reality.
Try branding: should a company be able brand its employees and fire those that don’t accept it. (Assume a new policy and a long operating company.)
No way- they would be sued out of existence. Rightfully so.
Corporations doing the governments bidding ... Sounds familiar... O yeah...fascism.
Real life isn’t a Thomas Sowell textbook.
The reason why companies love the mandates is because it saves compensation. The flip side would be to pay workers higher amounts to get a vaxx. Or, pay a worker higher to get branded. People would take the money or tacos.
We need a whole different country. Maybe rename it “Florida.”
I like the way you think. Who are we to stop a company from claiming that blowjobs help prevent throat cancer in women and then forcing women to give their male coworkers a blowjob daily or be fired?
I have not read that anyone is producing approved vaccines, have you?
If you say you’re a muzzie, you own America — Home of the Brave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.