Companies Push Employees To Prove They Are Vaccinated for Covid-19 (wsj.com) 408
Companies are stepping up the pressure on workers to get vaccinated -- not necessarily with mandates but with strong nudges. From a report: For months, many employers have attempted to coax workers into receiving a Covid-19 vaccine. Companies dangled cash, time off and other prizes to encourage vaccinations. Executives made personal appeals in town-hall meetings and internal memos. Now, some of those efforts are taking a more assertive and urgent tone. While most employers haven't flat-out ordered staff to get vaccinated, many are asking workers to report their vaccination status or are implementing policies that restrict the activities of unvaccinated workers.
Unlike the first wave of corporate efforts -- which focused more on getting front-line workers and essential staffers at retailers, hospitals and airlines vaccinated -- the latest push affects more professionals at banks, law firms and similar businesses. Some companies say they want reassurance that the majority of their workers are vaccinated before broadly reopening offices. Goldman Sachs last week ordered its U.S. employees to disclose in an internal portal whether they had received the vaccine. The Wall Street firm, which hasn't mandated vaccines, has told staff that fully vaccinated employees who have registered their status can work without masks in its offices. Others will still have to wear masks at all times except at their desks. Other banks, including Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, have asked employees to voluntarily register their vaccination status.
Unlike the first wave of corporate efforts -- which focused more on getting front-line workers and essential staffers at retailers, hospitals and airlines vaccinated -- the latest push affects more professionals at banks, law firms and similar businesses. Some companies say they want reassurance that the majority of their workers are vaccinated before broadly reopening offices. Goldman Sachs last week ordered its U.S. employees to disclose in an internal portal whether they had received the vaccine. The Wall Street firm, which hasn't mandated vaccines, has told staff that fully vaccinated employees who have registered their status can work without masks in its offices. Others will still have to wear masks at all times except at their desks. Other banks, including Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, have asked employees to voluntarily register their vaccination status.
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, companies don't want to hire people who are willfully endangering the lives of their colleagues by refusing basic safety precautions, due to being too stupid to understand them or too negligent to care?
Not me man, Stand up to the man! (Score:2, Funny)
That violates my Constitutional right to give other people preventable diseases because I don't understand (or care to try to understand) science!!
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're fully vaccinated, you shouldn't have anything to worry about since the vaccine is designed to lessen the severity of the disease instead of outright stopping it. You won't die from it, but you can still pass it along to someone else. Even if an un-vaccinated person passes it to you, since you've been vaccinated, you should be fine. ( So, other than a risk of potential severity in the un-vaccinated, the risk of transmission from one person to another is the same, regardless of your vaccination status. )
The only folks who really should be concerned here are those who are:
1) Un-vaccinated and have not had exposure to Covid-19 ( those who have had it will have the anti-bodies already via the normal / natural route )
2) Those who are unable to take the vaccines due to an underlying health condition. ( Who will have a waiver and likely not be working along side you )
Personally, I think most vaccinated are demanding that everyone else be forced to take it as well not out of some pretend concern for the human race in general, but rather because they took the risk and simply want everyone else to share in that risk as well. ( Eg: You're not a guinea pig if everyone is a guinea pig )
But that's just my opinion :P ( Flame away )
Things I worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
>If you're fully vaccinated, you shouldn't have anything to worry about since the vaccine is designed to lessen the severity of the disease instead of outright stopping it. You won't die from it, but you can still pass it along to someone else.
To me, the risk of passing it along to someone else, for example my friend with the organ transplant whose vaccination may not have worked because of the immunosuppression drugs, is something to worry about.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that is one thought that I would fully support, if you are talking about the USA. People there are really not into "common good".
If you are talking outside the USA, then I would say MOST people actually care that they could be killing someone, when they really don't have to.
Huh. Sounds like the US gun control... "You can't control guns, "I" don't kill people, so EVERYONE should be able to have guns" or some other factually or logically false argument.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you can't control guns because the US Constitution forbids you from doing so.
And in spite of that, governments all over the US (City, State, County) try to do so. And the Federal government tries to do so.
What they don't try is the only legal option available to them - change the Constitution. There's an Amendment process, so
Re: (Score:3)
"The second amendment does not allow all US citizens (we aren't talking Americans, we are talking Yanks) to bear arms, unless it is in regards to an organised militia."
Actually, that's arguable. First off, the amendment does not say "organized militia". The actual text is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is significant, because the word "militia" (as opposed to "organized militia" whic
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, its not arguable at all. Lets refer to the text again.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
See that comma in there right after "State" and before "the?" If it wasn't for that comma then it would mean a state run militia. But since there is that comma, it means every one has the right to bare arms. Punctuation is important.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Glad you like that, but I'm not the only one that "insist" that. That is how the Founding Fathers intended it and The Supreme Court has agree with that interpretation time and time again. Because you see, that is exactly why that comma is there. To separate the word militia to is own section of the amendment.
As I said, and I quote many others, "punctuation is important."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You won't die from it, but you can still pass it along to someone else.
Think that through, keeping in mind that most people don't live by themselves. In particular, remember that kids under 12 can't get vaccinated yet, but they certainly can get sick.
Personally, I think most vaccinated are demanding that everyone else be forced to take it as well not out of some pretend concern for the human race in general, but rather because they took the risk and simply want everyone else to share in that risk as well.
Nah, it's entirely selfish. A 95% effective vaccine is great, but it's even better when enough people take it to get herd immunity. The faster your body fights off the virus, the lower the odds of you spreading it to anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, I shall.
No, it has nothing to do with vaccinated people wanting to justify being guinea pigs. What a dumb-ass self-centered position!
Re: (Score:2)
That statement is misleading. The vaccines are designed to oppose COVID. That the vaccines merely lessen the severity (often to the extent that no disease can be detected) rather than prevent the disease, is an unfortunate property of the vaccines rather than a design goal.
Realistically, this isn't unique to COVID, this is just a property of how viruses and your immune system interact. As soon as the virus enters your body, it starts replicating. Your immune system needs to ramp up into gear and fight it off. No matter how good your immune system is, the response isn't instant.
If you get exposed to a small viral load, your immune system probably eliminates it before there's any significant replication. If someone with a nasty case of COVID sneezes right in your face, you prob
Bad combo (Score:2)
I wonder how an environment tyyhat pushes for invasive understanding of employees health, meshes with an environment where as a previous Slashdot story reported, workers are already inclined to simply quit instead of going back to work...
"nudging" anyone in an environment where workers are in short supply, seems like a very bad idea indeed.
Alternatively (Score:2)
Failure to consider the health of workers in short supply, seems like a very bad idea.
Since the majority of people know that natural selection doesn't care about your conspiracy nonsense.
Not a great plan (Score:3, Interesting)
Failure to consider the health of workers in short supply, seems like a very bad idea.
I see, so companies should also fire all workers sho smoke, drink, or like candy?
Hmm, an interesting, if incredibly sucky world, you have build in your tiny mental prison you choose to live in.
In the words of Chuck Schumer, you are retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, a place with a policy strongly promoting vaccination will attract people worried about getting the disease.
Well working with a company full of hypochondriacs doens't sound toxic at all. :-)
I always wonder what a company of all Karen's would be like... no not really. I would predict it would fold within a year. Talk about lack of diversity of thought...
As well they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Make phone companies require it! (Score:2)
Watch the selfish pricks run to get their phones unblocked by proving they were vaccinated! Only need to make a few corps worry about their FCC licenses; it's not like they aren't hated plenty already and all are tracking their customers.
You don't *HAVE* to get vaccinated (Score:4, Insightful)
don't pay for Covid-19 treatment (Score:5, Interesting)
All we have to do is to any federal support for treatment of Covid-19 if you aren't vaccinated. If you have to pay for your own treatment, suddenly the cost/benefit analysis changes.
You could even go the extra step and say private insurance isn't under any obligation to cover Covid-19 treatment.
Society should not be shouldering the cost of a pound of cure when an ounce of prevention is available.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a conservative wet dream.
Re: (Score:3)
Those vaccines aren't being mass produced and available to the public for free. They also don't have 90% efficacy rates like the Covid-19 vaccines.
No, but your argument is that when there is an ounce of prevention available for something that causes a lot of deaths then treatment should not receive federal support. Smoking kills around 500,000 in the USA every year and has done so for decades. We are talking around 15 million of deaths in the US alone over the last 30 years. Why not make the vaccine available for free and tell smokers that if they don't get the vaccine their medical costs will not be covered for those receiving publicly funded health
Human Rights Violation - Bodily integrity (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No Company, No Government can force People to get a vaccine.
And what bothers me most about the past few months - how each big pharma company is advertising their shit. In a distant past it used to be that one gets vaccinated against polio. Period. No company name was ever mentioned. One simply got vaccinated against polio.
Now it's all about different big pharma companies.
Some/Many of us distrust big tech (FAANG). Big pharma is no different.
And just to be clear - I am not anti-vaccination. But I am against how nowadays it's all about Big <company name>. Big Tech (FAANG), Big Pharma, etc.
It's all about money.
Re: (Score:3)
In a distant past it used to be that one gets vaccinated against polio. Period. No company name was ever mentioned.
Not correct http://www.saturdayeveningpost... [saturdayeveningpost.com]
I wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here (Switzerland), the people working in health care (hospitals, hospices, old age homes, etc.) have a huge anti-vax culture. How a medical professional can be against vaccinations, I really do not understand, but vaccination rates for things like the flu hover around 33%. They are appalled at the very idea that they might have to get COVID vaccinations. This, despite the fact that they care for the people most vulnerable to these diseases.
Fire them all.
Of course, that's easy to say, but replacing 2/3 of the medical personnel in the country would be...difficult. Which is the leverage that they rely on, to continue their idiocy. I still say: fire them all, if they refuse to vaccinate.
Work Suggestions... (Score:3)
Work suggestions ALWAYS morph into commands.
My work once had a "go green" push- don't get a paper copy of your paystub, you'd get an electronic one. Totally optional, keep your stubs if you want was written on the notices for this.
My normal process for monthly budget was to include all physical bills, staple them together, and file them for future reference. It was a pretty simple backup of my electronic versions.
If I printed out a copy , it would be the same waste, except I would be doing it on my dime, and not the company. So I refused.
Next up, they had a "go green and win prizes" campaign. Again, I refused.
Next: my manager comes out, full TPS report style "Hey, um, they're asking us to check up on anyone who hasn't Gone Green yet, just wondering if you could possibly go green...." I told him I wasn't .
Two weeks later, I'm informed I have no choice, and I can only receive an electronic copy.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope HIPPA doesn't apply
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Interesting)
Law actually has this specific thing covered. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
That is 42 USC ss. 12112 (d)(2)(a). 42 USC ss. 12102 (1) begins the definition of disability, of note is:
(B) Major bodily functions --- For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
Emphasis mine here. Additionally, queries that may be asked as outline in part B.
(B) Acceptable inquiry --- A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions.
And then everything else in that subsection is a laundry list of what is and isn't. The big point is "job-related functions", so it would require the company to ask that question before employment and then they would need to make justification for why it's related to the job.
Now asking about vaccine status... Nope, nowhere to be found in the law.
Now wait, you might be asking. "Well a vaccine is part of the immune system!" Ah, see they got you covered there too.
(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.
42 USC ss. 12102 (3)(B). Not being vaccinated is not an impairment. In fact, attempting to claim such would actually defeat the argument of the first stipulation. First argument, "I want to work but my employer will not allow me to work without getting vaccinated!" Counter: "If your employer did not bar you from employment based on vaccine status, could you in theory work?" If the answer is "yes" then you do not have an impairment, if the answer is "no" then you're saying you shouldn't have been working in the first place. So it's a fun argument, but already has an answer there too.
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Informative)
The US Equal Opportunity Commission also supports employers in requiring vaccinations, so long as they adhere to established disability law:
https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/... [eeoc.gov]
So "I don't want a vaccination because its not licensed" won't fly.
Jennifer Bridges et al VS Houston Methodist Hospital et al [arstechnica.net], ruled upon today, also establishes that employers can mandate vaccinations and those mandates do not constitute unlawful coercion, and dismissal for failure to get a vaccination does not constitute wrongful termination.
Re: (Score:3)
Said a lot more than that [npr.org]. The plaintiffs arguments we're more like what we see on Slashdot. I blame part of this on poor education by our school system.
Plus for those of failing memory just remember this [slashdot.org] not that long ago, and les people think that's a lone comment I've seen similar over on Arstechnica in Covid-19 threads several times.
That's fear folks, and in the battle between individual rights and public safety like during Typhoid Mary society will win.
Re: (Score:2)
And OSHA has said that they're liable for any damages if they mandate it.
What "damages" could happen as a result of a vaccination mandate?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
If a nurse isn't vaccinated they should not be working *anywhere*. Its irresponsible and negligent unless a damn good reason (hint: there really arent any. Even the "allergy" thing is kinda horseshit) prevents it.
No there aren't.
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at a big hospital, big enough that you probably have heard of it. All employees are required to be vaccinated against a wide variety of diseases, including annual updates for influenza. If you cannot be vaccinated, you must make a declaration as to why (immunocompromise, religious beliefs, etc.) and they do check. We have something like 98% compliance across all sectors of staff.
COVID vaccines are an exception to this requirement because they are still being delivered under an emergency authorization. We have something like 87 or 88% compliance last time I looked. I have no doubt that as soon as the FDA gives full authorization to Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax, the current strong suggestion for being vaccinated by the hospital administartion will become a requirement for employment.
Nurses were the first to be vaccinated (literally; if you recall, the first people in the US who were on TV getting vaccines were nurses) and I'd speculate that they have something really close to 100% compliance, because they see the effects of the disease. You do not want to catch COVID-19, if you can help it. You really do not. Sure, most people who get it are transiently sick and come out the other side OK, but there are a fair number of unvaccinated cases that do not fare well at all, and the chances of ending up like that swamp the chances of getting a bad reaction to the vaccine.
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
AIUI pregnancy is currently considered a good reason not to be vaccinated.
By who? You?
I think it's fairly understandable that clinical trials addressing the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy haven't been carried out.
If that were true, I'd agree with you. But it isn't.
While I understand this is the kind of thread where we can just say whatever the fuck we want and think other people should take it for gospel, don't take my word alone that you're full of shit. Take theirs [nih.gov]
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, to put it another way, vaccination isn't a medical condition. In addition, the lack of vaccination may be a health-and-safety issue, especially if there are immuno-compromised individuals around. Not everyone can get vaccinated safely.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there are still monkeys despite humans being around, and still wolves despite us having dogs. Do you have a point?
Re: (Score:2)
A more relevant question would be - would a porn studio be able to do so?
And my understanding (anecdotal and quite possibly flawed - I have no direct knowledge) is that any reputable studio requires regular testing for a wide range of diseases, and contractual commitments to avoid outside "engagements" that could result in spreading an un-diagnosed infection.
When your medical condition can directly put your co-workers' health at risk in the course of normal activities, it's reasonable to no longer consider
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I believe something like a twice a month HIV test is standard requirements for working in porn. Its how they get away with a lot of stranger sex with no condoms and surprisingly little HIV (You do get the occasional flare ups, and most health experts reaaaaly wish the porn industry would start rubbering up again like used to happen in the late 80s and 90s.)
Re: (Score:3)
No, because HIV doesn't threaten other employees. If Goldman Sachs was a brothel ...
It kind of is, except not the sort of brothel you have in mind.
Re:HIPPA issue! (Score:5, Informative)
HIPPA issue
I've no idea if it's a HIPPA issue, but it's certainly not a HIPAA issue.
Re: (Score:3)
HIPPA issue
Nope, it's not a healthcare setting.
"The HIPAA Privacy Rule is composed of national regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) in healthcare treatment, payment and operations by covered entities." [wikipedia.org]
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA (Score:2)
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA. It's not related to the vicious and violent big grey animal.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
There is unsurprisingly a relevant xkcd.
https://xkcd.com/2471/ [xkcd.com]
Re:No mandatory COVID-19 vaccincations (Score:5, Insightful)
And as soon as one of these vaccines gets full FDA approval (yes, Pfizer has already submitted the paperwork), I fully expect people like you to simply move the goalpost.
Re:No mandatory COVID-19 vaccincations (Score:4, Interesting)
Moderna submitted the paperwork also. And that's really the only thing separating EUA from full authorization. A bit more paperwork. They're not running additional trials or anything. They just need to file some forms with the (already available) trial results. Then, the FDA looks at everything and decides whether to approve it or not. Given that millions have already gotten the vaccine under EUA and it's been wildly successful, it's almost guaranteed that they will be approved for full authorization.
I agree with you on the moved goalposts as well. The second the vaccines are approved, the anti-vaxxers will drop the "it's not fully approved" argument and switch to some other "reason" why they are refusing the vaccine.
Re: My employer did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Look I don't know how it works at your company. But do you think it's possible that the company policy was not specifically designed around you?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't. I'm not a narcissist.
Although, given your username and the recent intersection of others falling under that description and narcissist, it could be a reasonable assumption ... :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means you should expect company policy to be designed around the least-honest individuals in the company. You don't need to policy for honorable conduct between honest individuals.
And unless your company has really spectacular hiring standards, it's quite reasonable to expect that many employees with strongly-held beliefs against vaccination (and of their own self-importance) would lie about being vaccinated in order to eliminate uncomfortable restrictions (or even stay employed).
Re: (Score:2)
They do that because of people like rlwinm who posted just after you...
Re: (Score:2)
If people are going to lie, they can make fake vaccine cards, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are going to lie, they can make fake vaccine cards, too.
True, but the pharmacy sent me confirmation emails with the vaccination information after my shots *and* the information is available from them *and* it shows up on my medical insurance account, so there are other ways one can confirm. Don't know about if someone got their shots from their local Health Department, but I imagine they have records too.
Re: (Score:2)
There will be edge cases. Here in Canada, there are some who got vaccinated in the States, don't know about Florida's record keeping. And down there, I'd guess those without insurance or showed up at a popup clinic might not have good records.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are anticipating nutjobs.
Or maybe trust is just not something that you can afford when discussing liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Nutjobs don't need a reason to wig out. If none is provided, they will invent one.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a convenient thing to tell yourself to absolve yourself of responsibility.
It's convenient because it's true.
But true fanatics are always fewer in number than the marginal, but still functional, individuals who only need a nudge to send them over the edge.
Those people aren't nutjobs. They're just incapable of functioning in their environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirming people are true to their word is hardly collective punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> My employer expects me to sign in and out instead of just trusting I am at work.
I haven't stepped foot inside my office in over a year, and they trust I am working.
Re: (Score:3)
And open yourself up to wilful negligence claims against you by people you infect after getting it yourself? Better to say nothing at all.
How about you just get the damn jab and be an adult about it...
Re: (Score:3)
How would you feel if an employer demanded to know your sexual orientation? Why have a law protecting that and not if you got some beta vaccine?
If you really don't understand the chasm of difference between these two things its useless trying to explain it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well-reasoned retort.
You are very smart.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why would I get a poorly tested vaccine for something I have no worries about? ...How would you feel if an employer demanded to know your sexual orientation? Why have a law protecting that and not if you got some beta vaccine?"
It's about protecting others, directly so they don't catch it from you and indirectly by not participating in community breeding of new variants. On the other hand your sexual orientation isn't in itself a threat to others directly or indirectly.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel if an employer demanded to know your sexual orientation? Why have a law protecting that and not if you got some beta vaccine?"
Gayness is not an infectious disease.
Re: Lie (Score:2)
Re:Lie (Score:5, Informative)
Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday from COVID-19 complications.
The Denver Sheriff's deputy had shared a string of anti-vax posts just weeks before his death, MailOnline reported.
"I have an immune system," read one of his Facebook posts.
He left behind a wife and two children.
---
Similar to Congressman elect Letlow, age 41, Louisiana
Re:Lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you can cite either the law, or the specific case that established such precedent?
The law cares nothing for "common sense", nor your idea of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an employer is creating incentives for people to lie. How many resumes are 100% honest?
Re: (Score:3)
I rate your comment idiotic at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Toilet mouthed, for sure. But idiot? Come on. Are you so intellectually lazy?
Thinking that the verbal faeces you season your comments with adds any weight to your arguments is what is intellectually lazy and that makes in turn makes you and idiot at best.
Re:How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most places of employment aren't going to have an issue with HIV spreading in the workplace which is quite different from COVID19. I know schools already can require proof of vaccination from different diseases so it's not out of the question that other organizations could.
I don't think people that aren't getting the vaccine are interested in liability for side-effects. The vaccines are already pretty wide-spread and the side-effects known at this point. The converse would be if companies are liable for covid spreading if they don't protect their employees
Re: (Score:2)
Also...
Your employer can require you get a COVID-19 vaccine: Here's what to know
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says US employers can require employees to receive vaccinations against diseases that have been recognized as pandemics, like COVID-19. The agency's guidance dates back to the H1N1 (aka "swine flu") outbreak of 2009 but was updated in March 2020 to address the coronavirus pandemic specifically.
There are two main exceptions: ADA (including compromised immune system) and Religious.
So
Re: (Score:3)
The vaccines are already pretty wide-spread and the side-effects known at this point.
Side-effects are probably well known. But there is always some uncertainty whether some long term side effects occur. During the swine flu epidemic in 2009 one of the vaccines used in Europe was later shown to cause narcolepsy in children (which is severely debilitating) at a rate which made mass vaccinations a bad choice. The costs simply outweighed the benefits. It has since been named the swine flu scandal. Some info:
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
Personally I have been vaccinated. But I do also recogn
Re: How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:2)
Re: How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:5, Insightful)
But are you willing to accept responsibility for passing it on to other people? Or are you going to self-isolate?
Re:How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:5, Informative)
Will companies agree to be held liable for any potentially negative side-effects that would arise from " strongly suggesting " their employees obtain the Covid-19 vaccination ?
No. Part of the slew of recovery bills past last year. Granted companies the ability to indemnity.
I'm curious, how can an employer dictate that a -current- employee ( not talking about a new hire here ) obtain a Covid vaccine, but not others such as the Flu, Hepatitis, HIV, or a whole list of others that most folks here on Slashdot have never even heard of unless you're a World traveler
My company mandated Hep AB vaccine after being employed there for about two years. And yes they may do that. Additionally, I don't know of any HIV vaccine. I think someone is working on it, but if a company was mandating a non-existent vaccine and not firing everyone, then I guess you'd have a case then.
How can a company force you to disclose your private medical information ?
There's certain protections. They're covered under Title 42 chapter 126 of the United States Code. So the answer is, it kind of depends. If it's listed there in chapter 126 then no they can't fire you for not answering without violating the law. If it is not listed there in chapter 126, then yes, they can fire you for not answering and suffer no legal ramifications. It's a pretty long read, so if you really want to know if "ABC" applies, you should check there as there's just too much there to list here.
For example, they legally can't ask you if you have HIV nor can they determine your continued employment based on if you are HIV positive or not.
See aforementioned Title 42 USC. Considering your example, there is a protection listed. 42 USC ss. 12112(1)
For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions
So no, they cannot ask you about HIV, since that information is protected. Again, you'd have to take whatever situation you're thinking and look it up and see if it does or does not have a protection. And just in case you get to thinking vaccine = immune system. 42 USC ss. 12102(3)(B) puts limits on those protections in 12112 and elsewhere.
(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.
You'd have to show that not having the vaccine was an impairment, that is, if the employer removed the bar for work in theory you would still not be able to work. Since the argument is you want to work without being vaccinated, it does not qualify as an impairment since having the vaccine or not having the vaccine doesn't physically alter your actual ability to preform work.
How is this any different ?
Again, if it isn't covered then it's different. Vaccine status isn't covered, that's what makes it different. If you feel very strongly about that, then may I recommend you drop a line here [house.gov] and here [senate.gov]. Perhaps they will see it as some sort of "oversight" and correct the perceived wrong of yours? Until then though, all I can say is "it's different".
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that if having HIV makes a difference at work, they can ask. The porn industry for example can demand HIV tests. Might be the only industry where HIV matters though.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that if having HIV makes a difference at work, they can ask
Yes, Part B
A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions
And it then goes into a long list of conditions and cases in Part C and D of which asking about HIV relates to job-related function. Since sex would pose a potential to induce harm and sex is job-related, HIV testing would be covered as a Part B limitation. Mandating HIV tests however would be at the State level.
Re: (Score:2)
"Will companies agree to be held liable for any potentially negative side-effects that would arise from " strongly suggesting " their employees obtain the Covid-19 vaccination?"
Janssen's vaccine is by far the one receiving the most scrutiny among the 3 major ones released in the US. There were investigations after 88 deaths that occured within a few weeks of the vaccination and found 3 which could be associated with it due to being caused by Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, blood clots in the brain. So rig
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm curious, how can an employer dictate that a -current- employee ( not talking about a new hire here ) obtain a Covid vaccine, but not others such as the Flu,
I'm not a labor lawyer, but "employment at will" allows for a lot of dictatorial conduct and I believe an employer could say "get a flu shot or you're fired". Without a union or an employment contract, nothing I know of could stop them. (Thinking US law here. Other countries are quite different.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's fine. The US Government has a fund. If you get sick from one of the vaccines, they'll cover it.
They totally can force them to get others (I have no idea why a new vs. existing employee matter
Re: How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:5, Informative)
Over 2% of those who have caught covid-19 globally have died.
The flu (which is deadlier than the common cold), killed 0.1% of the people who contracted it in 2019.
But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions.
Re: (Score:3)
But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions.
Just going by the username, (s)he's probably drunk... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can see it was .1% in 2017-2018 (62 million cases, 80,000 deaths) but it was 0.057% in 2018-2019 (38 million cases, 22,000 deaths). I think your data is off by a year.
However, those are estimates.
Estimated Covid19 deaths in the US are currently 1,015,000 deaths with about 80 to 140 million estimated covid19 cases (personally- I think it's about 110 million).
OTH, there are 38,00,000 definite validated by testing covid19 and 615,000 covid 19 deaths.
But personally... I think they over emphasize
Re: How does this differ from other diseases ? (Score:5, Informative)
Flu is estimated, and usually estimated upwards. Covid is based upon actual reported numbers for the most part, the estimation is low and it is likely under-counting cases. And still covid is much more deadly compared to the flu, both in total deaths and and with percentage of those with symptoms.
The fact that someone is *still* trying to claim covid is no big deal is just mind blowingly stupid, uninformed, repeating debunked political soundbites, or all of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Common Cold indeed. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's amusing how on the case of abortion it's "My body my choice", but when we're talking about the right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, it's ok to discriminate because there is only one true/smart decision.
It's equally, if not more, "amusing" for people to want to be free to control their own bodies by declining a vaccination, but also want to restrict others from having control over their bodies by denying them access to an abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
If refusing a vaccine only affected the moron who refused, no one would care.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amusing how on the case of abortion it's "My body my choice", but when we're talking about the right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, it's ok to discriminate because there is only one true/smart decision.
In the case of abortion, it is the government imposing restrictions they have to right to impose.
In the case of the vaccines, it is a private company imposing the requirement. You have no "right" to a specific job and employers can make any legal demand. If you don't like it, go work elsewhere, or start your own company.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be rather difficult to prove an individual became infected while AT the workplace unless said individual never leaves said workplace.
You can bet your ass that will be the go-to line the Company uses in an effort to avoid being liable for anyone who becomes ill.
( For any and all illnesses, not just Covid )
This gets even more complicated when you start talking about employee contracts. If a contract is valid for the next three to five years, you can't just up and decide to add new things to said cont
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, identifying "hot zones" for a specific outbreak is not that hard. No more difficult than tracing food poisoning to a particular restaurant or bad batch of lettuce. Or determining that a particular Friday-evening choir practice infected many of the participants. It's the sort of thing that epidemiologists call "a normal day at the office".
And if you really want to lock it in? DNA sequencing has gotten disturbingly cheap, and viral mutation rates are fairly constant. In principle it shouldn't b
Re: (Score:2)
"Person A" bears absolutely zero responsibility to keep anyone else safe.
I think several traffic laws would disagree with you ... try pulling your vehicle into a crosswalk with people in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Company A bears zero responsibility to ensure a job for Person A as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can shoot in your general direction and if you aren't hiding in your bunker, tough luck for you if I accidentally shoot you.
People who insist on spreading disease have been locked up, all legally. See Typhoid Mary. People have also gone to prison here for having sex with someone and not disclosing that they have aids to that person.