So if a private business owner says one has to be vaxxed to work there

[jasonnfree]

Some times the citizens have to obey the government if it's for the common good. The draft for example. If you're picked, you have to be inducted or go to jail. And shots. We got tons of them in boot camp. "This was back before JFK bought the farm. Of course, wealthy and unpatriotic sissies like trump had their mommies and daddies get them out of what was an obligation for the rest of us. Maybe if trump had been drafted and served his time he might have become a usefull citizen instead of a treasonous pig. I did vote for him but it didn't take me long to figure out what a dangerous and unpatriotic American he was.

 

[Dana7360]

The government can't "mandate" anything like this.

It will be in the courts for a long long time.

It already was in the courts. In Texas.

The conservative judge appointed by ronald reagan ruled in favor of the private employer saying the employer has the right to mandate vaccination.

That if the employee doesn't want to get vaccinated they are free to find employment elsewhere.

Judge rules in favor of Houston hospital requiring COVID vaccine for employees

The employees filed a lawsuit sued the hospital over its vaccine requirement, but a judge called the lawsuit frivolous.

abc7news.com

Then there's the case of Indiana University. They mandated everyone needed to be vaccinated. Some took it to court. They lost. The conservative judge ruled with the University and everyone has to be vaccinated.

College Can Mandate Covid-19 Vaccinations, Federal Judge Rules

A judge ruled to uphold Indiana University's policy to require vaccinations for students and staff entering campus in the fall.

www.forbes.com

Then there's the case in 1905 when the state of Massachusetts mandated vaccines for the small pox virus. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts. So a state can mandate vaccinations.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Massachusett's compulsory smallpox vaccination program did not violate a pastor's religious freedom rights under the First Amendment in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

mtsu.edu

It's already been in the courts and already settled case law.

The first two cases I listed were very recent and all over the news. Where were you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason

No, an employer does not and yes, an employer can.

The employer can claim the job loss was due to a lay-off, stipulating that the termination had nothing to do with the former employee’s job performance, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But the employee is gone just the same for whatever reason the employer decides.

And yet again: this is the environment hostile to working Americans you and others on the right created; you have only yourselves to blame.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1975 protects workers 40 years old and up from employment age discrimination.

So anyone above 40, be happy. You are part of a "protected class."

View attachment 522377

Wrong.

Various labor and employment laws enacted by Republicans over the decades allow employers to circumvent these statutes – such as, again, classifying the termination as a lay-off.

 

[meaner gene]

No, an employer does not and yes, an employer can.

The employer can claim the job loss was due to a lay-off, stipulating that the termination had nothing to do with the former employee’s job performance, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But the employee is gone just the same for whatever reason the employer decides.

And yet again: this is the environment hostile to working Americans you and others on the right created; you have only yourselves to blame.

I presume that the employer having to answer why an employee was fired, is due to some sort of complain the employee filed with either a government agency, or a court of law.

In either case, the employer could as you said, give any reason. He could even claim he put employees names into a hat, and which ever ones he pulled out, got fired.

For the case to go anywhere, they would have to find a discriminatory pattern, such as every black person, or every Jew, or every woman being fired. But if they kept even a single "token" on the payroll that claim would fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EEOC says differently

As you and your fellow rightists have always said: ‘if you don’t like how your employer treats you or his policies, go find a job elsewhere; your employer is under no obligation to accommodate his employees.’

At least be consistent with conservative dogma and tell those who don’t want to be vaccinated and are fearful of losing their jobs to go screw themselves, just as you’ve told black Americans, women, and gay Americans over the years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hate masks.

And?

I hate f’ing prostate exams – but I do it to catch the cancer early I’m likely to get.

If this pandemic has demonstrated anything it’s that conservatives are whiney cowards.

 

[meaner gene]

At least be consistent with conservative dogma and tell those who don’t want to be vaccinated and are fearful of losing their jobs to go screw themselves, just as you’ve told black Americans, women, and gay Americans over the years.

They loved employers being able to discriminate against blacks, before they became a protected class.

They loved employers being able to discriminate against the gays, before they became a protected class.

Until they make the unvaccinated a "protected class", they reap what they sow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I presume that the employer having to answer why an employee was fired, is due to some sort of complain the employee filed with either a government agency, or a court of law.

In either case, the employer could as you said, give any reason. He could even claim he put employees names into a hat, and which ever ones he pulled out, got fired.

For the case to go anywhere, they would have to find a discriminatory pattern, such as every black person, or every Jew, or every woman being fired. But if they kept even a single "token" on the payroll that claim would fail.

Claiming a lay-off is the nuclear option for employers; an employer can terminate an employee for any reason – race, religion, sexual orientation – with complete impunity.

True, the terminated employee might be eligible for unemployment compensation, but it’s a price an employer would be willing to pay if he wants to get rid of someone bad enough.

 

[otto105]

I don't think the unions will push back against this. The government just mandated that employers have the right to force vaccinations, I don't know if the unions will have the power to get that overturned.

Bbbuut think of the makers children….

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Wrong.

Various labor and employment laws enacted by Republicans over the decades allow employers to circumvent these statutes – such as, again, classifying the termination as a lay-off.

Name one and prove it with an authoritative link.

Layoffs are not allowed to discriminate based upon age. When they do, lawsuits often arise and prevail in court. Of course, layoffs which do not discriminate against protected classes are completely legal.

Here is a a link from the EEOC of your favorite Biden Admin confirming exactly what I posted...

Age Discrimination

Age Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

cc: meaner gene

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They loved employers being able to discriminate against blacks, before they became a protected class.

They loved employers being able to discriminate against the gays, before they became a protected class.

Until they make the unvaccinated a "protected class", they reap what they sow.

Snag is the designation of a protected class of persons runs counter to fundamental conservative dogma.

Conservatives wouldn’t want to look like inconsistent hypocrites, now would they.

 

[Adrenochrome Junkie]

But I can share a real-world reality at our dentist.
He has mandated that if you want dental work done in his office you must be vaccinated.

I was surprised when I heard that. Didn't know that he would or could take such a definitive stance.

This is what he told my wife (she ---and I ---have each been poked twice, since early March): He did it for his staff. He did it because his staffers demanded it. He said ---and there's about 8 of 'em -----but he said they came to him and said they didn't feel safe putting their hands in the mouths or being in close proximity in the operary with the un-vaccinated.

They asked him to inform all patients on the waiting list that they must show proof of vaccinations in order to get service from his office.

He agreed, and that's what they did. And that is the situation at his office now.
What it has cost him in patient drop-outs.....I dunno.

Satan is proud to see how much humans have grown to hate each other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Satan is proud to see how much humans have grown to hate each other.

Whoah whoah whoah, shaman. Take your silly iron aged voodoo to the religious section.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Name one and prove it with an authoritative link.

Layoffs are not allowed to discriminate based upon age. When they do, lawsuits often arise and prevail in court. Of course, layoffs which do not discriminate against protected classes are completely legal.

Here is a a link from the EEOC of your favorite Biden Admin confirming exactly what I posted...

Age Discrimination

Age Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

cc: meaner gene

The employee receives an email with the WARN Notice attached – there’s no explanation as to why the employee is being terminated, no recourse for the employee, no grounds for appeal or grievance; just a date as to when the employee is to be off the worksite.

Loading…

uscode.house.gov

 

[WEATHER53]

No, an employer does not and yes, an employer can.

The employer can claim the job loss was due to a lay-off, stipulating that the termination had nothing to do with the former employee’s job performance, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But the employee is gone just the same for whatever reason the employer decides.

And yet again: this is the environment hostile to working Americans you and others on the right created; you have only yourselves to blame.

The lay off has to be justified and confirmed. An employer cannot end a multi year employee for no cause other than the word “layoff”
You welfare types need to quit offering opinions when you have no experience. Cant yank a mans method of sustaining his family right out from underneath of him, far too many federal prohibitions of that . Considering how you all go to bat for deadbeats not being evicted it’s hypocritical that you take this stance regarding employment and that’s most likely because your pet mandatory mask and vaccination playtoy is being disparaged

 

[WEATHER53]

Name one and prove it with an authoritative link.

Layoffs are not allowed to discriminate based upon age. When they do, lawsuits often arise and prevail in court. Of course, layoffs which do not discriminate against protected classes are completely legal.

Here is a a link from the EEOC of your favorite Biden Admin confirming exactly what I posted...

Age Discrimination

Age Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

cc: meaner gene

And even then the layoff at any age cannot be linked to making the employer more money. Libs are slightly correct that employers do In fact do these things but once challenged they lose and they know this already so they don’t do it
You cant even fire someone for “being drunk a lot”. That’s considered a disease and has to be handled accordingly. You can fire the drunk for being late, sick a lot, can’t complete assignments, etc but not for being a drunk.

 

[meaner gene]

Layoffs are not allowed to discriminate based upon age. When they do, lawsuits often arise and prevail in court. Of course, layoffs which do not discriminate against protected classes are completely legal.

Here is a a link from the EEOC of your favorite Biden Admin confirming exactly what I posted...

Age Discrimination

Age Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

cc: meaner gene

If a company lays off 90% of those over 40, keeps 10% of them, and lays off 10% of those under 40 to cover their actions.

They just need to break the clear pattern with enough exception "tokens" to defend their actions. It's not rocket science how to get away with it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Full Disclosure

I don't want to write this post, but I don't think I can duck the issue. I was unofficially informed that apparently it will be the policy...

raconteurreport.blogspot.com

From the link;

"Full Disclosure​

I don't want to write this post, but I don't think I can duck the issue.

I was unofficially informed that apparently it will be the policy of my employer to require all employees, presumably including myself (they think), who have not received any COVID vaccinations, to submit to twice-weekly testing for COVID. This would involve shoving a swab up both nostrils two times a week, indefinitely.
Um...no.
If they try that, and make it official, my opening answer will be to invite the person who puts that suggestion into action to tell me exactly how far up their ass they'd like to stick that policy, and would they like my assistance in that endeavor?
Followed by the following blizzard of queries:
1) Who told you I did or did not get vaccinated?
2) Do you have a copy of my signed authorization to release that personal health information to any third party?
3) Lacking any such authorization, how would you possibly know my actual vaccination status?
4) Lacking that knowledge, how do you know which employees to even approach with this suggestion?
5) "Have I been vaccinated against COVID?" That's none of your fucking business.
6) Now you're asking me if I'm vaccinated against COVID? Again, that's none of your fucking business.
7) Submitting to receiving experimental therapies and becoming an unpaid medical guinea pig with respect to their effectiveness and potential complications was not and is not a condition of my employment. If it were otherwise, you'd have noted that from the outset. Trying to bluster and bootstrap it in now as if it were anything less than that is egregiously intrusive, entirely recockulous, and wholly unwelcome.
8) None of the vaccines for COVID are authorized for anything but emergency use. The makers have no liability for what happens to those who receive them. To date, the VAERS reports over 11,000 deaths from those COVID vaccines in just the U.S., and a quarter of a million adverse events. More of both deaths and adverse reactions than the total for every vaccine ever invented in human history, combined, for as long as we've kept records. Those COVID vaccines are therefore unsafe at any speed. And you have no more right as an employer to compel me, either directly, nor by onerous policies for non-compliance, to receive such an experimental therapy, any more than you could demand I submit to gender reassignment therapy, get an abortion, or have a limb amputated.
9) It's my body, and my choice. Shall we call in the company's legal counsel, and see how they'd like to sell the case against that legal position in court?
10) Ask counsel how they'll feel when the next three words I bring into the conversation are "hostile workplace environment". Then go over words like "mental stress and cruelty", "back pay", and "treble damages, plus all legal costs".
11) There are literally hundreds of other communicable diseases I (or any other employee) might or might not bring to work, many of which have no available vaccine. Are you going to test me for those bi-weekly as well? Why, or why not?
12) Are you going to be testing every other employee of the company for those dozens to hundreds of other communicable diseases? Why, or why not?
13) If I'm being singled out and categorized, isn't that the definition of "arbitrary and capricious"? How does corporate counsel like his odds in court defending that plan?
14) Why would you think you need to test me now, 18 months into a pandemic, for a disease for which I've shown no symptoms whatsoever, ever, to date, despite being a front-line caregiver with the sickest of the sick non-stop since the outset?
15) Are you aware the CDC reports that 75% of those fully vaccinated are the overwhelming bulk of those with the newest COVID variant? Will you be testing everyone twice a week, given that that's a far more sensible policy than proposing to test unvaccinated persons (bearing in mind you have no valid idea to which of those categories I belong)?
16) Are you aware that the CDC also reports that vaccinated persons carry the same amount of communicable virus in their bodies as unvaccinated persons? What's your plan to deal with that, and how do you intend to protect the unvaccinated from those vaccinated super-spreaders?
17) Are you aware that according to the CDC, despite being fully vaccinated, a person could suffer a more serious infection than an unvaccinated person? Knowing that to be the official position of the US government agency responsible for propagating communicable disease policy and procedure, why in hell would you suggest anyone get vaccinated, since it confers no immunity to the disease, no inability to spread the disease, and promises no diminution of symptoms if infected, despite getting the vaccinations?
18) In light of the above official CDC reported information, isn't promoting further vaccinations just about the most gobsmackingly dumbass thing you possibly could do, short of suggesting that people lick toilet bowls?
19) Given everything in #1-18, above, would you like to continue this discussion with lawyers, a judge, and a jury, in open court, or would you rather just quietly shitcan this silly-assed scheme, and allow all parties to pretend it never happened?
I'm old, ornery, and smart, and I won't be taking any shit, but I'll happily give it out by the metric fuckton if they try to push this sort of nonsense. I like my odds.
If my employer wants to test my resolve to go all "No, fuck YOU!", and become the poster child for why employment is not indentured servitude, they've grabbed the wrong tiger's tail. If they want to be the poster child on what not to do, I can only warn them that the stove is hot. But as Mark Twain said about the man who picked up the cat by the tail, they're about to learn something which they can learn in no other way.
I'll keep you posted, as appropriate.
If I'm betting, I'd give good odds this jackassery will be quietly strangled to death in a basement broom closet in about 5 minutes' time. Time will tell."

I'm interesting in how this all plays out for you.

 

[Flopper]

No it does not and the mesh is not even close to being fine enough
It does trap bacteria and moisture but the virus itself is transmitted with more deliveries than just those two methods.

No so.
The only mask that will filter out the virus is an N95 respirator that will filter all the way down to .1μm which is approximate the size of the virus. Since almost all the virus is transmitted via respiratory droplets which are much large than the virus, there is no need for these masks except in a medical setting where people are being constantly exposed with heavy concentrations of the virus.

The size of the smallest repertory droplets that carry the virus are about 1 to 50μm which include aerosols. However, most the virus is carried on much larger droplets which can exceed 1000 μm. A good quality 2 ply face mask will filter down to 20μm but will provide the best filtering above 100 μm This is probably the best mask for the general public because it will filter out most of the viral particles expelled on droplets from coughs, sneezes, and talking.

Reducing the velocity of particles being expelled is very important. A Sneeze can send particles out at over 100mph and a cough 50mph, and talking 10 mph. As particles past through the mask most of the larger particles will be caught in the fibers of the mask and most of those that get through the mask will suffer collisions with mask fibers and other particles reducing the velocity and increasing the dispersion. This is really important because the large particles settle rapidly but if expelled at high velocity they will travel much longer distances.

You have probably herd the slogan, "I wear a mask for you and you wear a mask for me." This is not just a catchy slogan. It is backed by good scientific data plus common sense. When a person wearing a mask expels viral particles, almost all the particles go straight into mask, not out the top or sides which often have gaps. When wearing a mask and hit by viral particles, those particles are likely to be dispersed. The ones that hit the front of the mask will be filtered a bit but those that hit the sides will enter easily through air gaps if the mask is not tight. So if you want your mask to be more effect at protecting you make sure the mask fits very snugly. Since most of us find that a mask that fits tightly is uncomfortable particularly in hot weather, we loosen it providing air gaps, thus the slogan, "I wear a mask for you and you wear a mask for me."

An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: Mechanisms of the aerosols penetration

The masks have always been mentioned as an effective tool against environmental threats. They are considered as protective equipment to preserve the r…

www.sciencedirect.com

Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles - PubMed

In 1995 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued new regulations for nonpowered particulate respirators (42 CFR Part 84). A new filter certification system also was created. Among the new particulate respirators that have entered the market, the N95 respirator is the most...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

two ply cloth mask mesh size chart - Google Search

www.google.com