4 ms·

> I hope this gets settled by the labor board or the Supreme Court rather than companies takin that mantle to impose a mandate themselves. Generally, the defau

> I hope this gets settled by the labor board or the Supreme Court rather than companies takin that mantle to impose a mandate themselves. Generally, the default is that private companies can discriminate however they please. In certain cases we've decided that that's not good for a society (race, religion, ethnicity), so we restrict their ability to do that. But why shouldn't private companies be allowed to make their own decisions about things that they perceive (whether they are right or wrong) will improve worker safety? In this case, vaccination status affects other people (in terms of increased risk of transmission + psychological perception), so how is different than my company's current rule that I'm not allowed to smoke at my desk?

mc32 5y ago
That could possibly be permissible for new employees signing a new agreement. However, “legacy” employees never signed any document of employment stating they were required to disclose vaccination status the way you are told you will have provide proof of identity and so on prior to onboardung.
- chadash 5y ago
  It seems like it is permissible. The question is whether it is right. In the US at least, employment is generally at-will, meaning they can fire you for basically any reason as long as it isn't discrimination of a protected class. If my employer decided tomorrow to fire anyone who doesn't vote Republican, they can do that. I think it would be unreasonable, but it would be permissable, regardless of whether i had to disclose this going in. But this isn't quite that extreme. Presumably, this is them making a decision based on what they believe is in the best interests for the safety of their overall workforce. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to make decisions that they believe keep employees safe?
  - mc32 5y ago
    A company could tell everyone they hired for finance they now are being transferred to research and development and vice versa. Nothing against the law. But people in finance were not hired to do R&D and people in R&D were not hired to do financials. The company could then of course fire the above for not performing --but HR usually never takes this approach to layoffs. They may eliminate departments or redefine things and then you re-apply and so on with new roles and duties but it's all formal. Companies could require employees to re-apply, but you'd see quite some pushback especially from people who have been there a while and may interpret the move as a threat to their job security.
    - BJBBB 5y ago
      'Constructive Dismissal'. Many U.S. states have labor law that cover this. And any company that I have seen do anything similar to this has lost money to both the state and the claimant. Typically, at least for at-will states, the employer simply terminates you without stating any reason. Very simple for the company and the employee at least gets unemployment pay.
    - chadash 5y ago
      Yeah that's entirely permissible. My company can move me from engineering to toilet cleaning if they want. I would probably quit because I would think it's unreasonable, but I doubt I'd win any lawsuits. But I'd argue that this bank's decision is both permissible and reasonable. In this situation, you have three groups of employees. Group A doesn't want the vaccine. Group B gets the vaccine but doesn't care whether Group A does or doesn't. Group C gets the vaccine and also doesn't want to work around people in Group A out of concern for their own safety. The company has to choose to accommodate either Group A or Group C. In this case, they chose the latter. Many companies will choose the former. But I don't see what's unfair about this? Group A might have started with the company with the expectation that vaccine status is private. But Group C might have started with the expectation that the company will take measures for their safety should situations change. Note: I think it's debatable as to how many restrictions we should have in place because of Covid. But there's no denying that many people want to reduce their exposure to the virus and I don't think it's unreasonable for a private company to accommodate that.
native_samples 5y ago
People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge. Which answers your question: companies should not be able to discriminate in this way for the same reason they aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, etc, even though some surely would. Because it would be irrational and wrong.
- chadash 5y ago
  > People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge. I don't believe that. The science clearly isn't 100% settled, but I believe that when the dust settles, we'll find that vaccinated people are less likely to get ill and therefore less likely to spread Covid. I could be wrong, but until the science is settled, I don't see what's wrong with discriminating on this basis.

mc32 5y ago

That could possibly be permissible for new employees signing a new agreement. However, “legacy” employees never signed any document of employment stating they were required to disclose vaccination status the way you are told you will have provide proof of identity and so on prior to onboardung.

chadash 5y ago
It seems like it is permissible. The question is whether it is right. In the US at least, employment is generally at-will, meaning they can fire you for basically any reason as long as it isn't discrimination of a protected class. If my employer decided tomorrow to fire anyone who doesn't vote Republican, they can do that. I think it would be unreasonable, but it would be permissable, regardless of whether i had to disclose this going in. But this isn't quite that extreme. Presumably, this is them making a decision based on what they believe is in the best interests for the safety of their overall workforce. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to make decisions that they believe keep employees safe?
- mc32 5y ago
  A company could tell everyone they hired for finance they now are being transferred to research and development and vice versa. Nothing against the law. But people in finance were not hired to do R&D and people in R&D were not hired to do financials. The company could then of course fire the above for not performing --but HR usually never takes this approach to layoffs. They may eliminate departments or redefine things and then you re-apply and so on with new roles and duties but it's all formal. Companies could require employees to re-apply, but you'd see quite some pushback especially from people who have been there a while and may interpret the move as a threat to their job security.
  - BJBBB 5y ago
    'Constructive Dismissal'. Many U.S. states have labor law that cover this. And any company that I have seen do anything similar to this has lost money to both the state and the claimant. Typically, at least for at-will states, the employer simply terminates you without stating any reason. Very simple for the company and the employee at least gets unemployment pay.
  - chadash 5y ago
    Yeah that's entirely permissible. My company can move me from engineering to toilet cleaning if they want. I would probably quit because I would think it's unreasonable, but I doubt I'd win any lawsuits. But I'd argue that this bank's decision is both permissible and reasonable. In this situation, you have three groups of employees. Group A doesn't want the vaccine. Group B gets the vaccine but doesn't care whether Group A does or doesn't. Group C gets the vaccine and also doesn't want to work around people in Group A out of concern for their own safety. The company has to choose to accommodate either Group A or Group C. In this case, they chose the latter. Many companies will choose the former. But I don't see what's unfair about this? Group A might have started with the company with the expectation that vaccine status is private. But Group C might have started with the expectation that the company will take measures for their safety should situations change. Note: I think it's debatable as to how many restrictions we should have in place because of Covid. But there's no denying that many people want to reduce their exposure to the virus and I don't think it's unreasonable for a private company to accommodate that.

native_samples 5y ago

People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge. Which answers your question: companies should not be able to discriminate in this way for the same reason they aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, etc, even though some surely would. Because it would be irrational and wrong.

chadash 5y ago
> People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge. I don't believe that. The science clearly isn't 100% settled, but I believe that when the dust settles, we'll find that vaccinated people are less likely to get ill and therefore less likely to spread Covid. I could be wrong, but until the science is settled, I don't see what's wrong with discriminating on this basis.