Traveler

Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Unless government funding is involved.

 

The Traveler

Correct. None of this effects me, I’ve already gotten the three shots. I have sympathy for anyone who loses their job over this, but I also see the irony here. A business can, and should be allowed to choose who they serve. That’s why a baker can refuse to bake a cake. The same baker can also fire you for not being vaccinated. Freedom goes both ways, not just ways you want it to! Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

A business can, and should be allowed to choose who they serve. That’s why a baker can refuse to bake a cake. The same baker can also fire you for not being vaccinated. 

I probably know 100 folks who are anti COVID vax, the vast majority are right wing.  I have yet to hear a single one of them say a private business should not be able to implement their own mandate and fire anyone who refuses the shot.  There's no end of griping about businesses choosing to do such a thing, but pretty much everyone understands it's their right to do it.

Here is a list of things I do see anti-vax folks doing:
- I know one person who quit his job because they were talking mandates, and went to work for another company that wasn't.
- My wife has heard of several in the medical and nursing fields who have quit over company mandates, only to be quietly hired back later.
- I have a buddy who runs a consulting firm, who is asking every contact he has "if someone is ticked off or fired because of the vaccine, send them my way and I'll hire them".  If his firm grows to 99 people, he'll start a second firm.
- I know 3, and have heard of dozens more, anti vax folks who just knuckled down and got the jab, to keep their jobs.  I can accept their principled stands against mandatory jabs, and their practical choice to not give up their paycheck.  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I probably know 100 folks who are anti COVID vax, the vast majority are right wing.  I have yet to hear a single one of them say a private business should not be able to implement their own mandate and fire anyone who refuses the shot.  There's no end of griping about businesses choosing to do such a thing, but pretty much everyone understands it's their right to do it.

Here is a list of things I do see anti-vax folks doing:
- I know one person who quit his job because they were talking mandates, and went to work for another company that wasn't.
- My wife has heard of several in the medical and nursing fields who have quit over company mandates, only to be quietly hired back later.
- I have a buddy who runs a consulting firm, who is asking every contact he has "if someone is ticked off or fired because of the vaccine, send them my way and I'll hire them".  If his firm grows to 99 people, he'll start a second firm.
- I know 3, and have heard of dozens more, anti vax folks who just knuckled down and got the jab, to keep their jobs.  I can accept their principled stands against mandatory jabs, and their practical choice to not give up their paycheck.  

My only first hand experience with this is that I have a friend from Houston who lost his job right after he emailed HR about the vaccine mandate their company had implemented. I know he stopped working there shortly afterwards but I’m not sure if the mandate was why.  I sort of doubt it though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Correct. None of this effects me, I’ve already gotten the three shots. I have sympathy for anyone who loses their job over this, but I also see the irony here. A business can, and should be allowed to choose who they serve. That’s why a baker can refuse to bake a cake. The same baker can also fire you for not being vaccinated. Freedom goes both ways, not just ways you want it to! Lol

Not really, you sure a baker could not sell or open their doors to black or latino persons? How long do you think that will last?

The baker doesn't have anything under him saying he has to bake a cake with a theme, the same way a jewish baker could deny making a cake theme, "The Holocaust never happened." I don't think the baker has the right to deny someone who is homosexual to purchase a cake, just as you can't deny a black person access to a bus or tell them where they have to sit. So, no, Lol.

A business should not be able to deny employ to a person who isn't vaxxed, just as a business is not able to deny service/employ if they are a certain color. Its stupid, and only people with control and power issues would do so, as we see with our great President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have yet to hear a single one of them say a private business should not be able to implement their own mandate and fire anyone who refuses the shot. 

Well, now you at least know one person NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Not really, you sure a baker could not sell or open their doors to black or latino persons? How long do you think that will last?

The baker doesn't have anything under him saying he has to bake a cake with a theme, the same way a jewish baker could deny making a cake theme, "The Holocaust never happened." I don't think the baker has the right to deny someone who is homosexual to purchase a cake, just as you can't deny a black person access to a bus or tell them where they have to sit. So, no, Lol.

A business should not be able to deny employ to a person who isn't vaxxed, just as a business is not able to deny service/employ if they are a certain color. Its stupid, and only people with control and power issues would do so, as we see with our great President.

Just so that I’m clear, you have the freedom to not get vaxxed, but your boss lacks the freedom to employ who they want to? 
 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Just so that I’m clear, you have the freedom to not get vaxxed, but your boss lacks the freedom to employ who they want to? 
 

Yes, you have heard of anti-discrimination clauses right? Is a employer able to not employ a gay person just because they are gay? No.

Does an employer have the freedom not to employ women because they are women? Or will there be a lawsuit where the employer will pay out for the discrimination?

The same way an employer is not able to make a decision and demand knowledge if you have an STD and if you do he/she is not able to say sorry you can't be employed here.

The same way, if you rent your house you can't say to someone who drinks or smokes that you can't rent my house because you drink or smoke -- although it is your "private" home.

The same way a loan officer is not able to say to a Latino, or someone of a different culture, I can't serve you because you are [insert culture], but if I do I will charge you 2% more for the cost of the loan.

If a business, private, had the freedom you say to serve none of these laws would exist.

If you agree that an employer has the freedom to not employ a gay person because they are gay, or any of the above scenarios are OK and should not be regulated by law, then I will acquiesce my thoughts -- pertaining to your thoughts -- because you are consistent.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, you have heard of anti-discrimination clauses right? Is a employer able to not employ a gay person just because they are gay? No.

Does an employer have the freedom not to employ women because they are women? Or will there be a lawsuit where the employer will pay out for the discrimination?

The same way an employer is not able to make a decision and demand knowledge if you have an STD and if you do he/she is not able to say sorry you can't be employed here.

The same way, if you rent your house you can't say to someone who drinks or smokes that you can't rent my house because you drink or smoke -- although it is your "private" home.

The same way a loan officer is not able to say to a Latino, or someone of a different culture, I can't serve you because you are [insert culture], but if I do I will charge you 2% more for the cost of the loan.

If a business, private, had the freedom you say to serve none of these laws would exist.

If you agree that an employer has the freedom to not employ a gay person because they are gay, or any of the above scenarios are OK and should not be regulated by law, then I will acquiesce my thoughts -- pertaining to your thoughts -- because you are consistent.

Fair enough. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

you agree that an employer has the freedom to not employ a gay person because they are gay, or any of the above scenarios are OK and should not be regulated by law, then I will acquiesce my thoughts -- pertaining to your thoughts -- because you are consistent.

And yes, I’ve always said that. On here, on other social media, etc. An employer should have a right to tell whoever they want to take a hike, customer or worker, for whatever reason. Now, should they fire a worker for being gay? Of course not. Same with someone not being vaxxed. But they should have that right. You have the freedom to do things that I’m repulsed by. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LDSGator and @Anddenex I have mixed thought concerning your discussion.  I have a few small businesses and a couple of them are very much dependent on "public" perceptions.  And so I must expect that those I employ (which are very few) put forth the perceptions we intend to put forth towards the public.  This may sound weird but I am not concerned so much about a person's "private life" but I am very concerned about what they intend to make publicly known about their life choices.   There are grooming standards and dress standards for when they are working but I make no effort to tell them how to behave, dress or maintain themselves in their "private lives".   I have employed individuals fresh out of Jail and I was just as open and honest with them as I am in my explanations before the forum as to my expatiations during the hours of my employment.

Some call this the golden rule - or the one with the gold makes the rules.  Having been in the employ of the government (receiving government money while in the military) I have learned a hard lesson that especially the government more than any other employer puts more restrictions on those "under" their control.  What I do not understand is why that part of the government that is paid directly by the citizens (taxes) still behaves like they are our masters.  And I also do not understand why so many citizens allow them to get away with it.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@LDSGator and @Anddenex I have mixed thought concerning your discussion.  I have a few small businesses and a couple of them are very much dependent on "public" perceptions.  And so I must expect that those I employ (which are very few) put forth the perceptions we intend to put forth towards the public.  This may sound weird but I am not concerned so much about a person's "private life" but I am very concerned about what they intend to make publicly known about their life choices.   There are grooming standards and dress standards for when they are working but I make no effort to tell them how to behave, dress or maintain themselves in their "private lives".   I have employed individuals fresh out of Jail and I was just as open and honest with them as I am in my explanations before the forum as to my expatiations during the hours of my employment.

Some call this the golden rule - or the one with the gold makes the rules.  Having been in the employ of the government (receiving government money while in the military) I have learned a hard lesson that especially the government more than any other employer puts more restrictions on those "under" their control.  What I do not understand is why that part of the government that is paid directly by the citizens (taxes) still behaves like they are our masters.  And I also do not understand why so many citizens allow them to get away with it.

 

The Traveler

Trav, you have every right to run your company the way you want to run your company. If you don’t want long haired tattooed people working in your store, that’s absolutely fine.  If I don’t want squeaky clean guys who look like they are still on a mission working for me, that’s fine too. 
 

It’s probably better off for everyone. Who wants to work with or associate with someone who doesn’t like or respect them?

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2022 at 12:16 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I probably know 100 folks who are anti COVID vax, the vast majority are right wing.  I have yet to hear a single one of them say a private business should not be able to implement their own mandate and fire anyone who refuses the shot.  There's no end of griping about businesses choosing to do such a thing, but pretty much everyone understands it's their right to do it.

Here is a list of things I do see anti-vax folks doing:
- I know one person who quit his job because they were talking mandates, and went to work for another company that wasn't.
- My wife has heard of several in the medical and nursing fields who have quit over company mandates, only to be quietly hired back later.
- I have a buddy who runs a consulting firm, who is asking every contact he has "if someone is ticked off or fired because of the vaccine, send them my way and I'll hire them".  If his firm grows to 99 people, he'll start a second firm.
- I know 3, and have heard of dozens more, anti vax folks who just knuckled down and got the jab, to keep their jobs.  I can accept their principled stands against mandatory jabs, and their practical choice to not give up their paycheck.  

I have (in my current opinion of course).

I've also seen students (and unfortunately staff) that have tried to make issues about this.  It's not just about THEIR rights apparently, they feel that anyone who does not agree with them is curtailing their rights as well. 

We saw it quite a bit with masks and social distancing in 2020 where companies would require masks and there would be those that would refuse to wear one or social distance and harrass the poor employees about the policy. 

We see it now occasionally with policies at the university where students feel it is their RIGHT in this situation to refuse to follow university policies and implement their feelings on the matter instead.  They feel it is abridging their "Freedoms" to require such.

We see it at Church (which is private property) where the Prophet and First Presidency themselves asked us to vaccinate and take precautions and there are MANY who refuse to do so.  Ironically, many had previously said to follow the Prophet no matter what.  Many said they would have happily done what their pioneer forbears did if required...but looking at the metal serpent (aka...wearing a mask, social distancing, or getting vaccinated) was FAR too much trouble for them.  They refuse to follow the requests of the owners of the property of the Church.

There are state governments that are attempting to ban mask or vaccine mandates, meaning a PRIVATE company in some states may not have a vaccine mandate if those state governments succeed (and vice versa, as it is perhaps left to the states in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, some places may have masks mandated).

state efforts to ban or enforce mandates

What do we consider them not contesting the idea that private business should be allowed to mandate vaccines if they so desire?

Edited by JohnsonJones
Spelling, grammar, other mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Traveler said:

@LDSGator and @Anddenex I have mixed thought concerning your discussion.  I have a few small businesses and a couple of them are very much dependent on "public" perceptions.  And so I must expect that those I employ (which are very few) put forth the perceptions we intend to put forth towards the public.  This may sound weird but I am not concerned so much about a person's "private life" but I am very concerned about what they intend to make publicly known about their life choices.   There are grooming standards and dress standards for when they are working but I make no effort to tell them how to behave, dress or maintain themselves in their "private lives".   I have employed individuals fresh out of Jail and I was just as open and honest with them as I am in my explanations before the forum as to my expatiations during the hours of my employment.

Some call this the golden rule - or the one with the gold makes the rules.  Having been in the employ of the government (receiving government money while in the military) I have learned a hard lesson that especially the government more than any other employer puts more restrictions on those "under" their control.  What I do not understand is why that part of the government that is paid directly by the citizens (taxes) still behaves like they are our masters.  And I also do not understand why so many citizens allow them to get away with it.

 

The Traveler

I don't find anything wrong with "policies". For example, if you have tested positive for [insert sickness] the policy is to stay home until better. Dress and grooming are all policies that anyone can adhere to and it doesn't require anything "into" the body.

My brother-in-law is a Oral Surgeon. Part of the policy is if you have tattoos on the arms you have to wear long sleeves. I wouldn't agree though with a policy/mandate/rule that said you can't be hired if you have a tattoo.

I'm against any rule/mandate/law that specifies something I have to do to mine own body in order to stay employed or work there. I may not agree with tattoos but it would be unjust as a business employer to fire someone over a tattoo. Or vice versa, an employer saying to current employee base if you don't get a tattoo of our company brand symbol you will be fired by this date.

I understand there are outliers to almost anything, as I am speaking in general.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Well, now you at least know one person NT.

Fair enough.  I don't agree, but fair enough.

A person can't chose to not be gay, or female, or black.  A person can chose to get the shot.  That's one difference in my mind.    Another difference: Both of Biden's mandates, including the one that didn't get thrown out by the supreme court, allow medical and religious exemptions.  Similar reasoning - you can't chose your medical situation, and shouldn't be forced to deny your faith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Trav, you have every right to run your company the way you want to run your company. If you don’t want long haired tattooed people working in your store, that’s absolutely fine.  If I don’t want squeaky clean guys who look like they are still on a mission working for me, that’s fine too. 
 

It’s probably better off for everyone. Who wants to work with or associate with someone who doesn’t like or respect them?

I think there are other factors to be considered.  The only reason that I run a business is to create a profit.  I have posted in the past that I am not motivated by money.  But that is a personal thing.  The reality is that I do not run any business to lose money.  I like providing income to others.  Most of the others also own their business and work for me through their business and contractors.   I could make a very long list of things I have learned about employing others.  For example a very average person that has done a particular thing successfully many times is much better at getting that job done than a PHD genius that has never done that particular thing.  This is short for someone with experience is better than someone with a college degree that is new on the job.  Many corporate mangers (and political individual or many others with college degrees) have not figured this out.  One of the best plumbers I use has a masters degree in business and accounting - but he likes being a plumber better and he makes more money.

You are correct - respect is very important but I do not think liking someone is all that important.  It is hard for me not to like anyone once I get to know them (but there are exceptions).  I have never met someone that works and does a good job that I cannot like.  However, I would not want them to date my daughter but I can get along with them in the work place.  I have also learned not to go to a bar with people I work with - even if I drink milk or water.  I do not mind if someone swears as long as they do not while I am around.

One last thing - thank you for your support.

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I don't find anything wrong with "policies". For example, if you have tested positive for [insert sickness] the policy is to stay home until better......

Question do you consider mental illness a sickness?  Just checking to see if there are any exceptions?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Traveler said:

You are correct - respect is very important but I do not think liking someone is all that important. 

We agree totally. I don’t need to like you to work with you, I just have to respect you. I’ve worked successfully with people I can’t stand, and I’m 100% positive they’ve felt the same way about me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

We agree totally. I don’t need to like you to work with you, I just have to respect you. I’ve worked successfully with people I can’t stand, and I’m 100% positive they’ve felt the same way about me. 

As I think more on this - I have worked for individuals that I did not respect at the time.  I once told a vice president in a company I worked for that if I performed my job (assignment) as poorly as he did - I would expect to be fired.  Interestingly this all turned our better than one might expect but the whole story would be far to long for this thread.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I think more on this - I have worked for individuals that I did not respect at the time.  I once told a vice president in a company I worked for that if I performed my job (assignment) as poorly as he did - I would expect to be fired.  Interestingly this all turned our better than one might expect but the whole story would be far to long for this thread.

 

The Traveler

Wow. That’s bold of you my friend. Glad it turned out good in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough.  I don't agree, but fair enough.

A person can't chose to not be gay, or female, or black.  A person can chose to get the shot.  That's one difference in my mind.    Another difference: Both of Biden's mandates, including the one that didn't get thrown out by the supreme court, allow medical and religious exemptions.  Similar reasoning - you can't chose your medical situation, and shouldn't be forced to deny your faith.

 

Understood, and this is one area we will probably have more disagreement with and that is OK.

I recognize the idea of not being able to choose (it's valid); however, as a "private" home owner who chooses to rent there are laws against prohibiting or not renting to individuals who drink and smoke (I know smoke for sure, drinking maybe not but I believe it is accurate). Smoking and drinking are personal choices that we have laws against that you can't discriminate, which makes sense.

In the beginning, when going through Loan Officer training and trying to understand all the laws in place. I used to think you should be able to deny renting to smokers and drinkers due to personal choice. Then, as I thought more about it, worse case scenario, if everyone who rented denied smokers and drinkers a place to live they would be homeless and that would not be just, nor right. In that light, knowing my own mind, the law against that is good and right. No matter what freedoms we think we have we don't have the right/freedom to deny someone a place of shelter for their personal choice of smoking and drinkings. I don't see this any different with the concept of being vaxxed and employment. Its the same category/principle. A person needs a job to provide for himself/herself and family. If every place of employment (as with renting a private home) decided to not employ that would cause a person the inability to do what is one of the most important options in our day -- providing. It would be unjust and not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Question do you consider mental illness a sickness?  Just checking to see if there are any exceptions?

 

The Traveler

If true mental illness, then yes, if a person needs time to recover, recuperate, then yes. At the same time, a person is being employed for a job. If they aren't performing their job, then sadly a hard discussion needs to happen between the employer and employee.

I think there are always exceptions, thus I also provided "true" mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now