5 ms·

It always seemed very tiring to me: work out who the person is, work out what political allegiance they have, and then decide to agree or disagree with them/pot

It always seemed very tiring to me: work out who the person is, work out what political allegiance they have, and then decide to agree or disagree with them/potentially having to reorder or reinterpret X or Y to make it all fit. Regardless of that: if I am someone who believes that vaccines do not work (and btw, in the context of American politics...this does not seem a wild conspiracy, you see the same level of nonsense distributed by people on the left too) then am I likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? No. If anything, that suggests to me that I am probably correct. In other words, the point of removing unemployment insurance is to hurt people who disagree with me...this is not smart (and again, an ironic position to take from people who view themselves as very liberal and open...next-level stuff).

abeyer 5y ago
> likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - tandymodel100 5y ago
    Doctors, police, nurses and home health aides directly harm the public they serve by not getting vaccinated. They are themselves more at risk to spread the virus in higher viral load quantities over longer periods of time and are more at risk of death themselves. They should be fired and not coddled for taking a stance against modern medicine. > To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply They can, have, and should.
    - hogFeast 5y ago
      The principle of requiring healthcare staff to get the vaccine is already established. Most countries in Europe already do this. This is not the same thing as requiring all employees to be fired if they fail to have a medical procedure that the President deems necessary. Your point, however, is totally anti-science: 500 years ago, would you ask for someone to be fired because they didn't use the appropriate amount of leeches? It is amazing that the people who go on about this kind of thing don't understand basic elements of what science is. So your employer is allowed to sterilise employees with disabilities? Perhaps only those employees with mental illness? If you question whether this is realistic, this happened in the US 70 years ago, and the very same principle was used to sterilise disabled people en masse. The ends do not justify the means, this is ubermensch ideology (only those who can rise above morality and do things that others are unwilling to do will possess the future...it is madness, it is something that hasn't existed in politics since the 30s...and, to be clear, it existed in the US too).
  - thephyber 5y ago
    > To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply... Citation needed. Vaccine requirements are not out of the norm for most jobs. And in “at will” work states, if your demand to not have a vaccine isn’t in your employment contract, you are most likely out of luck. It is not protected under labor law, employment law (unless your union negotiated that point specifically), and is not a protected category. I personally would prefer the frequent testing or proof of antibodies as alternatives (it would lessen the political polarity of the issue), but I’m not overreacting and pretending like a vaccine mandate is equivalent to rounding up Jews in German-occupied Poland. In the scheme of things that Americans have suffered (but legally and illegally) at the hands of our governments and our employers, this vaccine is diminutive. Biden’s mandate that covers private companies which are not government contractors is questionable (I’m interested to see how the appeals go), but any org/company which has existing service/vendor contracts with the federal government is likely to be reaffirmed. SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. There is no federal mandate for all residents, but any city/state that wants to mandate it is supported by jurisprudence. It is honestly really worrying that Republican legislators in many states are rolling back legal requirements for vaccines of far deadlier diseases while virtue signaling their political allegiance against COVID vaccines. I think you also ignore how much Americans already tolerate when you pretend like one of three well tested vaccines is something that will cause mass unrest.
    - unabirra 5y ago
      > SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. So are we ok with anything that has been "ruled" already? Or only when the ruled thing goes in line with what we think? Because a lot of stuff has been ruled in the past 2 centuries that I'm sure you would scream bloody murder if someone from the other side defended it.
      - thephyber 5y ago
        The parent used the word “cannot” instead of “should not”. This argument is about the law in practice, not ethics. I would probably agree with you if we were tabula rasa writing a new legal framework, but we aren’t.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    And on the core issue: Florida makes qualifying for unemployment extremely difficult for anyone who applies. The current governor even blamed the previous one (both Republicans) for creating an unemployment application website that is designed to improve denied claims rates. It is an “at will” work state last I checked, so your employer has _lots_ of freedom to fire Florida employees. This new legislation is a blatant move by the legislature to signal political allegiance with vaccine resisters and given them special treatment that people who are fired for different reasons don’t get — this is what your parent comment was pointing out.

abeyer 5y ago

> likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.

hogFeast 5y ago
[flagged]
- tandymodel100 5y ago
  Doctors, police, nurses and home health aides directly harm the public they serve by not getting vaccinated. They are themselves more at risk to spread the virus in higher viral load quantities over longer periods of time and are more at risk of death themselves. They should be fired and not coddled for taking a stance against modern medicine. > To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply They can, have, and should.
  - hogFeast 5y ago
    The principle of requiring healthcare staff to get the vaccine is already established. Most countries in Europe already do this. This is not the same thing as requiring all employees to be fired if they fail to have a medical procedure that the President deems necessary. Your point, however, is totally anti-science: 500 years ago, would you ask for someone to be fired because they didn't use the appropriate amount of leeches? It is amazing that the people who go on about this kind of thing don't understand basic elements of what science is. So your employer is allowed to sterilise employees with disabilities? Perhaps only those employees with mental illness? If you question whether this is realistic, this happened in the US 70 years ago, and the very same principle was used to sterilise disabled people en masse. The ends do not justify the means, this is ubermensch ideology (only those who can rise above morality and do things that others are unwilling to do will possess the future...it is madness, it is something that hasn't existed in politics since the 30s...and, to be clear, it existed in the US too).
- thephyber 5y ago
  > To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply... Citation needed. Vaccine requirements are not out of the norm for most jobs. And in “at will” work states, if your demand to not have a vaccine isn’t in your employment contract, you are most likely out of luck. It is not protected under labor law, employment law (unless your union negotiated that point specifically), and is not a protected category. I personally would prefer the frequent testing or proof of antibodies as alternatives (it would lessen the political polarity of the issue), but I’m not overreacting and pretending like a vaccine mandate is equivalent to rounding up Jews in German-occupied Poland. In the scheme of things that Americans have suffered (but legally and illegally) at the hands of our governments and our employers, this vaccine is diminutive. Biden’s mandate that covers private companies which are not government contractors is questionable (I’m interested to see how the appeals go), but any org/company which has existing service/vendor contracts with the federal government is likely to be reaffirmed. SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. There is no federal mandate for all residents, but any city/state that wants to mandate it is supported by jurisprudence. It is honestly really worrying that Republican legislators in many states are rolling back legal requirements for vaccines of far deadlier diseases while virtue signaling their political allegiance against COVID vaccines. I think you also ignore how much Americans already tolerate when you pretend like one of three well tested vaccines is something that will cause mass unrest.
  - unabirra 5y ago
    > SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. So are we ok with anything that has been "ruled" already? Or only when the ruled thing goes in line with what we think? Because a lot of stuff has been ruled in the past 2 centuries that I'm sure you would scream bloody murder if someone from the other side defended it.
    - thephyber 5y ago
      The parent used the word “cannot” instead of “should not”. This argument is about the law in practice, not ethics. I would probably agree with you if we were tabula rasa writing a new legal framework, but we aren’t.
- thephyber 5y ago
  And on the core issue: Florida makes qualifying for unemployment extremely difficult for anyone who applies. The current governor even blamed the previous one (both Republicans) for creating an unemployment application website that is designed to improve denied claims rates. It is an “at will” work state last I checked, so your employer has _lots_ of freedom to fire Florida employees. This new legislation is a blatant move by the legislature to signal political allegiance with vaccine resisters and given them special treatment that people who are fired for different reasons don’t get — this is what your parent comment was pointing out.