3 ms·

In order to know who is eligible for medical exceptions, you'd have to ask people about their medical conditions which could run afoul of the ADA. https://www.

In order to know who is eligible for medical exceptions, you'd have to ask people about their medical conditions which could run afoul of the ADA. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/employers-should-be-cautious-when-asking-about-vaccination-status.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> you'd have to ask people about their medical conditions Not necessarily. You would have the employee represent and warrant to it. If they lie and it causes a problem down the road, they’re clearly liable, that’s fraudulent misrepresentation and the company is in the clear.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
  What problem? They would continue working from home I would assume.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > would continue working from home I would assume Is anybody proposing vaccine requirements for remote-only workers? The announcement this thread is based on literally carves out this exception.
    - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
      Nobody is proposing them that I know of, nor was I suggesting anyone was. I'm suggesting that people should have the option but not the requirement to provide vaccination status and those who don't wish to provide their vaccination status should WFH indefinitely. Note, Google has only extended their WFH guidelines until Oct. 18th. To me it sounds like they're trying to get most employees back into the office by the end of the year whether they want to or not.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > those who don't wish to provide their vaccination status should WFH indefinitely I agree with this. I don't believe every employer has the obligation to support this choice. WFH has been largely normalised--if it's a requirement for someone, they can find their place.
        jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        Yeah have to disagree. When COVID is actually over, as in the virus is mostly eradicated, that might make sense. Forcing people back into crowded offices unnecessarily--even vaccinated offices-- while the pandemic is still going on is cruel. If Google takes that stance then I feel people are perfectly justified in lying to obtain a religious or medical exemption.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I feel people are perfectly justified in lying to obtain a religious or medical exemption I suppose they have the moral right. But if they get infected, the costs are on them. If they get others infected, their costs are on them. And of course, fraudulent misrepresentation and all that.
        jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        Again, we are talking about WFH. And potentially for vaccinated people who just aren't ready to go back to the office.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> you'd have to ask people about their medical conditions Not necessarily. You would have the employee represent and warrant to it. If they lie and it causes a problem down the road, they’re clearly liable, that’s fraudulent misrepresentation and the company is in the clear.

jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
What problem? They would continue working from home I would assume.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > would continue working from home I would assume Is anybody proposing vaccine requirements for remote-only workers? The announcement this thread is based on literally carves out this exception.
  - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
    Nobody is proposing them that I know of, nor was I suggesting anyone was. I'm suggesting that people should have the option but not the requirement to provide vaccination status and those who don't wish to provide their vaccination status should WFH indefinitely. Note, Google has only extended their WFH guidelines until Oct. 18th. To me it sounds like they're trying to get most employees back into the office by the end of the year whether they want to or not.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > those who don't wish to provide their vaccination status should WFH indefinitely I agree with this. I don't believe every employer has the obligation to support this choice. WFH has been largely normalised--if it's a requirement for someone, they can find their place.
      - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        Yeah have to disagree. When COVID is actually over, as in the virus is mostly eradicated, that might make sense. Forcing people back into crowded offices unnecessarily--even vaccinated offices-- while the pandemic is still going on is cruel. If Google takes that stance then I feel people are perfectly justified in lying to obtain a religious or medical exemption.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I feel people are perfectly justified in lying to obtain a religious or medical exemption I suppose they have the moral right. But if they get infected, the costs are on them. If they get others infected, their costs are on them. And of course, fraudulent misrepresentation and all that.
        jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        Again, we are talking about WFH. And potentially for vaccinated people who just aren't ready to go back to the office.