6 ms·

>We were promised this wouldn't happen by our governments last year right? We were promised that a company can't require a vaccine as a condition of employment

by xnyan 5y ago

>We were promised this wouldn't happen by our governments last year right? We were promised that a company can't require a vaccine as a condition of employment? Seeing as some companies have required vaccines for as long as there have been vaccines, I think I must be misunderstanding you. >Why are private companies stuck policing these absurd policies? Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees less likely to miss work due to illness.

nsxwolf 5y ago
With the exception of healthcare I don't think a lot of companies have mandated vaccines. My wife works in healthcare and there was a tuberculosis shot mandate for specific jobs at her hospital. There was a flu shot mandate of sorts, but it was tied to a small bonus. You can't point to a small sector that has mandates and say it wouldn't be a significant change if suddenly 100% of all workers everywhere were subjected to it.
- comrh 5y ago
  Any business doing work with the US government will have to mandate vaccines.
  - bravetraveler 5y ago
    My employer already went this route, something about a fed mandate for their contractors... and we have a lot of those. They extended it to everyone lol
- xnyan 5y ago
  Millions of people in various sectors outside healthcare (by the way, since when is healthcare a "small sector"?) have had vaccines required as a condition of employment. , mostly people with plenty of risk like teachers, the military and some people working in the travel industry, but this is not always the case. I was required to get the flu shot (or an exemption) in my last job at an electrical engineering firm. On a broader note, I think (coming from the US) workers should have stronger protections against being fired, but everyone I've personally talked to who does not believe your employer should be able to fire you for not getting a vaccine is also opposed to "state controlled employment" or almost anything else that exerts control over the employer-employee relationship. You can be fired for almost any reason in the US, being fired for not getting a vaccine does not seem any worse to me than being fired for any number of awful yet totally legal reasons.
- asoneth 5y ago
  As a counterpoint, when I worked for a private university (unrelated to healthcare) I was required to have up-to-date vaccinations. I was also not allowed to smoke on campus. These kinds of workplace safety rules may be more common than you think.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
> Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees less likely to miss work due to illness. Then if I don't want to get a vaccine, I'll sign an agreement that if I get sick and miss work, I don't get paid, and that's the end of it.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  That covers you but what about the members of staff who actually have a genuine reason for not receiving the vaccine? Peter in ops recently received a double lung transplant and no longer has a functioning immune system. Are you prepared to also sign an agreement barring yourself from ever walking into one of our offices or attending social gatherings?
  - efficax 5y ago
    People with compromised immune systems need the shot even more
  - native_samples 5y ago
    If Peter in ops has no immune system, he will get sick from non-COVID viruses or diseases regardless of what is done by other people. In that hypothetical situation it would be him who shouldn't go to an office, not other people.
    - Volundr 5y ago
      I'm not sure why you immediately assume this is hypothetical. I know a couple people in similar situations. They exist and are not so uncommon as to assume the OP is making it up. It's also not the doom scenario you describe. Yes they have to take extra precautions, and yes the people around then have to make a point to not be around when they are sick, but with a little consideration plenty of people with highly compromised immune systems live meaningful lives.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago
Karsteski 5y ago
Should companies also require their employees not be overweight because they are less likely to miss work due to illness?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I don't think weight is a protected category, so yes this is fine. For example insurers will discriminate based on weight. The military discriminates based on weight. Hooters discriminates based on weight. Etc.
  - Karsteski 5y ago
    Well I hope we don't end up in such a world. Even if I personally won't be affected negatively. Sounds incredibly distopian.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      You already do. Just because nobody writes an articles talking about how they try to avoid hiring overweight people doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Or to be sterilised so they can't get pregnant or make their partner pregnant. Having kids leads to missing work after all.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    An employment policy interfering with employee pregnancy, in particular, is illegal (but only because it was explicitly made so in 1978 - https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1978 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1...). In general, when an employment discrimination is not specifically forbidden via the Civil Rights Act (or interpreted as equivalent to something explicitly forbidden by the Court), it is legal to discriminate based on it in the United States. Beyond that, the Court and the legislature are (from a political philosophy standpoint) generally willing to let individual employees and employers (or employers and unions) hash out the messy details.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by xnyan 5y ago

nsxwolf 5y ago

With the exception of healthcare I don't think a lot of companies have mandated vaccines. My wife works in healthcare and there was a tuberculosis shot mandate for specific jobs at her hospital. There was a flu shot mandate of sorts, but it was tied to a small bonus. You can't point to a small sector that has mandates and say it wouldn't be a significant change if suddenly 100% of all workers everywhere were subjected to it.

comrh 5y ago
Any business doing work with the US government will have to mandate vaccines.
- bravetraveler 5y ago
  My employer already went this route, something about a fed mandate for their contractors... and we have a lot of those. They extended it to everyone lol
xnyan 5y ago
Millions of people in various sectors outside healthcare (by the way, since when is healthcare a "small sector"?) have had vaccines required as a condition of employment. , mostly people with plenty of risk like teachers, the military and some people working in the travel industry, but this is not always the case. I was required to get the flu shot (or an exemption) in my last job at an electrical engineering firm. On a broader note, I think (coming from the US) workers should have stronger protections against being fired, but everyone I've personally talked to who does not believe your employer should be able to fire you for not getting a vaccine is also opposed to "state controlled employment" or almost anything else that exerts control over the employer-employee relationship. You can be fired for almost any reason in the US, being fired for not getting a vaccine does not seem any worse to me than being fired for any number of awful yet totally legal reasons.
asoneth 5y ago
As a counterpoint, when I worked for a private university (unrelated to healthcare) I was required to have up-to-date vaccinations. I was also not allowed to smoke on campus. These kinds of workplace safety rules may be more common than you think.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

> Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees less likely to miss work due to illness. Then if I don't want to get a vaccine, I'll sign an agreement that if I get sick and miss work, I don't get paid, and that's the end of it.

tjpnz 5y ago
That covers you but what about the members of staff who actually have a genuine reason for not receiving the vaccine? Peter in ops recently received a double lung transplant and no longer has a functioning immune system. Are you prepared to also sign an agreement barring yourself from ever walking into one of our offices or attending social gatherings?
- efficax 5y ago
  People with compromised immune systems need the shot even more
- native_samples 5y ago
  If Peter in ops has no immune system, he will get sick from non-COVID viruses or diseases regardless of what is done by other people. In that hypothetical situation it would be him who shouldn't go to an office, not other people.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    I'm not sure why you immediately assume this is hypothetical. I know a couple people in similar situations. They exist and are not so uncommon as to assume the OP is making it up. It's also not the doom scenario you describe. Yes they have to take extra precautions, and yes the people around then have to make a point to not be around when they are sick, but with a little consideration plenty of people with highly compromised immune systems live meaningful lives.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
5y ago

Karsteski 5y ago

Should companies also require their employees not be overweight because they are less likely to miss work due to illness?

chrisseaton 5y ago
I don't think weight is a protected category, so yes this is fine. For example insurers will discriminate based on weight. The military discriminates based on weight. Hooters discriminates based on weight. Etc.
- Karsteski 5y ago
  Well I hope we don't end up in such a world. Even if I personally won't be affected negatively. Sounds incredibly distopian.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    You already do. Just because nobody writes an articles talking about how they try to avoid hiring overweight people doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Ekaros 5y ago
Or to be sterilised so they can't get pregnant or make their partner pregnant. Having kids leads to missing work after all.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  An employment policy interfering with employee pregnancy, in particular, is illegal (but only because it was explicitly made so in 1978 - https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1978 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1...). In general, when an employment discrimination is not specifically forbidden via the Civil Rights Act (or interpreted as equivalent to something explicitly forbidden by the Court), it is legal to discriminate based on it in the United States. Beyond that, the Court and the legislature are (from a political philosophy standpoint) generally willing to let individual employees and employers (or employers and unions) hash out the messy details.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]