Rights of a Business or Employer- slippery slope?

[JonC]

On the BB some have argued against the right of a business or empoyer to make employment criteria or conditions when it comes to vaccinations.

There are a few things to consider.

First, vaccinations are not covered under HIPAA. Employers have the right to immunization and vaccination data if they believe it necessary in the course of business. This does not include medical diagnosis or medications.

Second, historically employers had (and have) the right to require vaccinations that they deem necessary.

Historically requiting vaccines is most common in occupations where employees provide personal services to individuals who are at high risk of developing serious complications if they were to contract the virus. This is why it is legal for emoyers to mandate a flu shot if they consider it necessary.

There are some, as mentioned, on this board who believe the people, not the emoyer, should make this determination.

Whether one believes it us a good freedom or not, the fact is there are some on this board who desire to strip this freedom from the employer and give it to the people. This is socialistic.

But it is also dangerous. Why stop at vaccines? Why not strip companies like Hobby Lobby from the right of free speech and let the people decide what should be said or supported?

When we start stripping away basic rights we will, IMHO, see other rights decline.

My view is that businesses should retain their rights as long as they operate within the law (they cannot violate anti-discrimination laws, labor laws, etc.).

 

[Two Wings]

Jon .... that's all well and good until we get to the liability part.

how about the competing interest of a property owner to prohibit the presence of a firearm? Doesn't that infringe on another citizen's right to keep and bear arms?

I would submit the resolution is such: the private property owner/business has the right to make such restriction, but then must assume full liability for the security of all persons properly accessing the property.

When there is no liability for the product (the Pharmas) nor the mandate (the company/business) ... that's a deal breaker.

If (you're) so sure of making a mandate to require a (given) vaccination, then as that decider, you need to be willing to accept the responsibility for that decision. If this has happened, I'm unaware of it. Please advise.

 

[carpro]

On the BB some have argued against the right of a business or empoyer to make employment criteria or conditions when it comes to vaccinations.

.

I agree a business has the right to have constitutional conditions of employment, or not.

But as far as vaccinations are concerned, the president has arbitrarily, and I believe illegally, taken that right away from many of them.

 

[JonC]

I agree a business has the right to have constitutional conditions of employment, or not.

But as far as vaccinations are concerned, the president has arbitrarily, and I believe illegally, taken that right away from many of them.

I agree the President overstepped. This is not what I am talking about.

I work for a company that lost 16 people to covid this year. They struggled with long absences due to covid. At one time we had almost 200 people out. Looking at the data they realized the deaths and serious cases, as well as the lengthy absences, were among the unvaccinated. They anticipated a DOE requirement in the future but implemented vaccines as a condition of employment prior to an EO taking place.

I am talking about businesses making business decisions- NOT the federal government requiring companies to mandate vaccines or test for covid.

 

[Two Wings]

were among the unvaccinated.

Jon ... how many of the losses were sustained after widespread cv vax availability?

It seems a bit pejorative to declare those lost last year/before mass availability in a statement like this.

A follow up question is ... did those lost have any of the "alternative" treatments? HCQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide protocols?

I think before declaring the need to cv vax based upon deaths, these treatments need to be recognized. Thousands of people have recovered from cv due to these different protocols which were activated early ... not late.

I believe we lost a lot of people we should NOT have lost due to the "standard" treatment which directed the patient to "go home" until they couldn't breathe. At that point, intubation, secondary bacterial infection of a dire straits condition that didnt' need to be.

But then without the deaths we'd not have so desperately needed the EUAs for the cv jabs.

See???

 

[just-want-peace]

Jon ... how many of the losses were sustained after widespread cv vax availability?

It seems a bit pejorative to declare those lost last year/before mass availability in a statement like this.

A follow up question is ... did those lost have any of the "alternative" treatments? HCQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide protocols?

I think before declaring the need to cv vax based upon deaths, these treatments need to be recognized. Thousands of people have recovered from cv due to these different protocols which were activated early ... not late.

I believe we lost a lot of people we should NOT have lost due to the "standard" treatment which directed the patient to "go home" until they couldn't breathe. At that point, intubation, secondary bacterial infection of a dire straits condition that didnt' need to be.

But then without the deaths we'd not have so desperately needed the EUAs for the cv jabs.

See???

CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL

 

[JonC]

Jon ... how many of the losses were sustained after widespread cv vax availability?

It seems a bit pejorative to declare those lost last year/before mass availability in a statement like this.

A follow up question is ... did those lost have any of the "alternative" treatments? HCQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide protocols?

I think before declaring the need to cv vax based upon deaths, these treatments need to be recognized. Thousands of people have recovered from cv due to these different protocols which were activated early ... not late.

I believe we lost a lot of people we should NOT have lost due to the "standard" treatment which directed the patient to "go home" until they couldn't breathe. At that point, intubation, secondary bacterial infection of a dire straits condition that didnt' need to be.

But then without the deaths we'd not have so desperately needed the EUAs for the cv jabs.

See???

This was the past 8 months. Vaccinations were avaliable on site (we have medical). We lost 4 fairly recently.

But that does not matter. My point is the decision and the decision process belongs to the business. They do not owe an explanation.

I just do not think it is a good idea to start revoking rights. Many of our freedoms are already in jeopardy. Now conservatives are looking at taking away freedoms and this is, IMHO, a very slippery slope. People want to take away freedoms that suit their agenda. In the end this hurts the minority, and I believe Christians are the minority.

 

[Two Wings]

But that does not matter.

until you answered the question it mattered. I've heard folks refer to such triple digit losses ... which included dates before Dec '20 ... by definition they were unvaxed for cv unless they happened to be in that 40K person 3 month test in the summer of '20.

Anyhow. You repeat that rights are being stripped and they're not. Businesses don't have rights. People have rights. I know there's this legal status of corporations and that's some really fringe stuff as far as righteousness goes.

The only way to suggest the business' "right" is superior is to also acknowledge the employee is owned by the business. There are LOTS of restrictions on businesses and bodily autonomy has to remain one of 'em.

I'm sorry for the losses of your colleagues. I'm not sure how that many in one place are experienced. Of the 14K of my colleagues, I think we've lost maybe 5 due to CV ... and all 5 of them were due to the standard (non) treatment.

I've yet to read of a person who was treated with HCQ, Ivermectin, or Budesonide protocols to perish.

 

[Silverhair]

Forget about the vax, the question really is just this. Does the business owner have the right to mandate what the job requirements are? YES. The person that works there or is applying to work there can decide if they want to meet those required conditions. Before I retired I had to deal with a number of different business and at each one I had to agree to the conditions of entering their place of business.

Having said that if a business says you have to be vaxed and wear a mask to enter their business that is their right. If you do not agree then don't go there.

 

[JonC]

until you answered the question it mattered. I've heard folks refer to such triple digit losses ... which included dates before Dec '20 ... by definition they were unvaxed for cv unless they happened to be in that 40K person 3 month test in the summer of '20.

Anyhow. You repeat that rights are being stripped and they're not. Businesses don't have rights. People have rights. I know there's this legal status of corporations and that's some really fringe stuff as far as righteousness goes.

The only way to suggest the business' "right" is superior is to also acknowledge the employee is owned by the business. There are LOTS of restrictions on businesses and bodily autonomy has to remain one of 'em.

I'm sorry for the losses of your colleagues. I'm not sure how that many in one place are experienced. Of the 14K of my colleagues, I think we've lost maybe 5 due to CV ... and all 5 of them were due to the standard (non) treatment.

I've yet to read of a person who was treated with HCQ, Ivermectin, or Budesonide protocols to perish.

It does not matter what criteria a business uses to make their decisions. Business owners are not, at this time, accountable to "the people" for their business decisions as long as they operate within the law.

This is my point. If you own a business and decide to mandate a mask free employment you do not have to justify your decisions to anybody. It is your business.

But this is what you are insisting should change. How is this not a move towards a socialistic community???

 

[carpro]

I am talking about businesses making business decisions- NOT the federal government requiring companies to mandate vaccines or test for covid.

As am I.

 

[carpro]

Of the 14K of my colleagues, I think we've lost maybe 5 due to CV ... and all 5 of them were due to the standard (non) treatment.

I've yet to read of a person who was treated with HCQ, Ivermectin, or Budesonide protocols to perish.

I believe this may be the first pandemic, or epidemic for that matter, that went more than 18 months without the authorities developing and publishing some kind of treatment for ambulatory patients. Instead, they sent them home and told them to come back when they got sicker. A death sentence for many.

Every treatment that was advanced or recommended by physicians or other professionals on the firing line was shot down by government authorities. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of it was politically motivated.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe this may be the first pandemic, or epidemic for that matter, that went more than 18 months without the authorities developing and publishing some kind of treatment for ambulatory patients. Instead, they sent them home and told them to come back when they got sicker. A death sentence for many.

Every treatment that was advanced or recommended by physicians or other professionals on the firing line was shot down by government authorities. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of it was politically motivated.

and in doing me cases piled them together in nursing homes

 

[JonC]

As am I.

Then is your argument that man cannot make decisions for his business unless he can justify that decision to "the people" and they accept his reasoning?

And how is not allowing these men the right they have historically had regarding their businesses not stripping them of that right?

 

[carpro]

Then is your argument that man cannot make decisions for his business unless he can justify that decision to "the people" and they accept his reasoning?

No. I'm not advancing an argument.

Just agreeing with you.

And adding that the government, in this case, has taken that prerogative away from many business owners.

 

[JonC]

No. I'm not advancing an argument.

Just agreeing with you.

And adding that the government, in this case, has taken that prerogative away from many business owners.

I disagree that the government has taken the prerogative away, but it has made an additional cost (which is significant but not extraordinary significant given it is a cost of business, applies to businesses with 100+ employees and not out of profit). That said, it makes requiring vaccinations a more cost effective option.

If the anti-covid-vaxers are correct regarding public sentiment then perhaps testing rather than requiring a vaccination would increase overall revenue. I just don't think they are right (but this may vary by area).

My argument is this is government overreach (at least for the federal government).

 

[Two Wings]

But that does not matter.

It does not matter what criteria a business uses to make their decisions.

there are two different matters here.

The first one was in response to the number of people your outfit lost per my query.

The second one is the decisions a business makes for requirements to be employed.

So ... let's try to avoid pirouettes from one to another.

I find the move to force cv jab to be another in the laundry list of the evil one ... diminish the value of life and the sovereignty of one's person.

there has been huge success in this goal with Roe V Wade ... then there was a burble of success with Kevorkian who was once considered irrationally off the scale but now his attitudes are given real consideration. And I don't mean to suggest the terminal should suffer, but that the time of passing is God's, not ours. As you know, God has been punted in many ways.

Mandating the cv Jab is another way to displace God.

Does a business have the right? No, it does have the authority, but doing this does not make it righteous.

 

[canadyjd]

On the BB some have argued against the right of a business or empoyer to make employment criteria or conditions when it comes to vaccinations.

There are a few things to consider.

First, vaccinations are not covered under HIPAA. Employers have the right to immunization and vaccination data if they believe it necessary in the course of business. This does not include medical diagnosis or medications.

Second, historically employers had (and have) the right to require vaccinations that they deem necessary.

Historically requiting vaccines is most common in occupations where employees provide personal services to individuals who are at high risk of developing serious complications if they were to contract the virus. This is why it is legal for emoyers to mandate a flu shot if they consider it necessary.

There are some, as mentioned, on this board who believe the people, not the emoyer, should make this determination.

Whether one believes it us a good freedom or not, the fact is there are some on this board who desire to strip this freedom from the employer and give it to the people. This is socialistic.

But it is also dangerous. Why stop at vaccines? Why not strip companies like Hobby Lobby from the right of free speech and let the people decide what should be said or supported?

When we start stripping away basic rights we will, IMHO, see other rights decline.

My view is that businesses should retain their rights as long as they operate within the law (they cannot violate anti-discrimination laws, labor laws, etc.).

Do you have a source for your statement that vaccination information is not covered under HIPPA laws?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

there are two different matters here.

The first one was in response to the number of people your outfit lost per my query.

The second one is the decisions a business makes for requirements to be employed.

So ... let's try to avoid pirouettes from one to another.

I find the move to force cv jab to be another in the laundry list of the evil one ... diminish the value of life and the sovereignty of one's person.

there has been huge success in this goal with Roe V Wade ... then there was a burble of success with Kevorkian who was once considered irrationally off the scale but now his attitudes are given real consideration. And I don't mean to suggest the terminal should suffer, but that the time of passing is God's, not ours. As you know, God has been punted in many ways.

Mandating the cv Jab is another way to displace God.

Does a business have the right? No, it does have the authority, but doing this does not make it righteous.

But companies have the freedom to require vaccinations without explaining or even having a reason beyond their desire to have vaccinations as a condition for employment.

The way I see it you need to have a good reason to strip these rights.

Just disagreeing with the findings of the agencies that determine the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is not a good reason.

 

[Two Wings]

But companies have the freedom to require vaccinations without explaining or even having a reason beyond their desire to have vaccinations as a condition for employment.

The way I see it you need to have a good reason to strip these rights.

no ... as I just explained ... they have the authority to mandate certain requirements, but that doesn't give 'em the right. There's a difference in authority and rights. I can't require that all my employees be able to walk to perform a desk job ... that violates the ADA law.

Then there are the employees by contract. Are you advocating breaking a contract because there's a popular, if unwise, movement to cv jab everyone? What does a contract mean, then?

Acts of God exclusions ... will you suggest the CV is an act of God? God caused all of this?