“Red States are paying employees to remain unvaccinated by tweaking unemployment laws”

It could be a sex industry business in Nevada.

The point is, if the business dramatically changes their policies, and it is done in an unreasonable manner, then if the employee is fired for not abiding to that new policy, then they would typically be eligible for unemployment.

Another example might be a desk job, and then the employer later demands that employee have to go out and do hard physical work, with completely very different requirements and working conditions from what that employee was doing before.

 

Where have you been? That is such an ignorant statement it doesn't deserve to be posted. You are so unaware of sexual assault. WoW!!!

 

It's her "choice", isn't it?

According to people like you, she doesn't have to keep working there.

 

Illegal activities are not going to be followed or upheld in courts.

According to people like you, she has to sleep with her boss. Such a stupid thing to say.

And no, according to people like me, she can't be fired for not sleeping with her boss. Get real.

 

“Could be” isn’t proof of anything

And if such is the case why did the States have to now “reinterpret” their existing laws and guidelines, no one was ever fired for not abiding to a new company policy?

 

So it's illegal to tell an employee they have to do something blatantly unreasonable or lose their job?

Hmm... interesting...

 

I doubt that is actually the case.

(I mean, I'm sure there is some rare instance on the record where a company tried to enact a new policy, some employees refused to go along with it and were fired, and then there was a dispute about unemployment)

 

You are not serious. You think a boss forcing a subordinate to sleep with them is not illegal. Where do you get these silly ideas?

 

My point is it doesn't have to be illegal for it to be considered unreasonable for the purposes of unemployment benefit entitlement.

Like I previously explained, hiring a topless waitress is not illegal. Giving your current waitresses the option of being topless waitresses if they want to keep their job is also not illegal.

 

Maybe he is the "boss " and expects female co workers to sleep with him........ as SOP.

(and only if they are UNVACCINATED A persons' health is less important thatn a persons RIGHTS.& POLITICS ........ to some .

 

Um, no restaurant can just make their waitresses go topless. I bet that is also illegal. Unless they register with the local gov't as a topless or nudie placd.

What is it with you and forcing women to have sex or go topless? And then thinking that is perfectly legal and all right for companies/bosses to do.

Sex assault and harassment is illegal.

 

Not true. Any restaurant could decide to convert into a topless bar. (in places where topless bars are legal)

Of course any waitress who did not want to keep working there because she refused to go topless would be entitled to unemployment.

 

People that quit do not receive unemployment benefits. It's probably a lie being spread by leftist media to trick people out of their well earned benefits.

If it's true, show me the law or governor decree, not a carefully worded article from the forked tongue MSM.

 

Hahahahahahaha! Thanks.

 

exactly. These workers paid for those benefits.

The article cited in the opening post is dishonest, or at least intentionally very misleading.

An employer can't just require their workers to do whatever and get out of that going on his business record and higher premiums having to be paid. There are reasonable things, and then there are unreasonable things. I'd say being required to have something injected into your body doesn't automatically and obviously fit into the "reasonable" category.

 

It would seem that an employer can and should EXPECT his employees to what is in their best HEALTH interest .. As it is not only in THEIR best HEALTH interest........it is in the company's best interest and keeps people working. An employer has the responsibility to provide a sage and HEALTHY work environment for the staff. This includes rules of conduct, professionalism and expectations of the staff to do their part. Every work place has standards that employees must comply to.......and that includes health standards....


It is so sad that this serious PUBLIC HEALTH issue has been so politicized ..........as it is delaying the time we get it under control.

A pandemic changes the rules of the game. (and life)

Seems that many have the sense of entitlement...........and believe they know better than he experts and wont' be told what to do..........(like kids)
and don'tallow that even experts are learning as they try to deal with this worldwide issue.

This country should be setting a positive example.........to the world............... as it has the resources, the technology, the medical smarts and yet........It allowed politics, mixed messaging, disinformation, EXTREME partisanship to influence the population into a lot of resistive behavior. (as well as confusion)

 

If this sets a precedence by allowing a sitting president to enforce his own law over our united states constitutional rights, then what would prevent employers from firing or laying off anyone who is overweight, has a speeding ticket, likes to go to the bar for drinks or anything that business or president can deem unhealthy in the future?

There is a reason why we have constitutional rights, not just to appease those who believe everything their favorite politicians or political party preaches to you.

 

Where does the constitution say that one has the right to spread an infectious virus onto to OTHERS and endanger their health?? Or be endangered by others??

Were does the constitution say that one is not to be responsible and take every health precaution when a serious virus is a full blown pandemic??

One can suspect that the foundling fathers would have a LOT to say about what is happening now.... Unless their VOTERS HEALTH did not; matter to them. dead people can't vote and have no rights.

 

Actually, you are making an argument that all employees who defy their corporate policies are entitled to unemployment because 'its their money'. Has that always been your position?

 

The last time I looked, mine had a dollar amount that reduced by how much I used, which was relevent because I was effectively drawing 'underemployment' because I hadn't been fired or layed off but my hours had been reduced, so I was claiming a different amount each week to make up for how ever many hours I didn't work. In this scenario, there wasn't any time limit to how long I could draw but rather an actual dollar amount that equalled how much I had payed into it, and I could continue drawing until it reached 0. This was in WA and several years ago.

 

Playing Russian roulette with vaccines largely untested and the Pharmaceutical Companies have a free pass. If something shows up in the future, you can't even sue them. The government granted them immunity.

I was hospitalized after a very bad truck accident. The hospital administered a relatively new drug in large doses, being approved by the FDA it should have been safe. 5 years later the FDA issued a black box warning as it caused a lot of people to have their tendons become brittle. Mine did. What will you do 5 or even 10 years from now if some nasty side effects show up? Sorry, I won't knowingly or willingly become a crash test dummy for Big Pharma without great financial remuneration for the risks I would be taking.

 

Because it happened back then (smallpox, chickenpox, syphilis, malaria, influenza, measles, and the bubonic plague) and the founding Fathers still saw no need to add anything into the Constitution.

 

Yes. However my position before that is that no one should be required to pay into unemployment. But since they are, they should at least not be restricted in when they can access it.

But then again its a bit disingenuous to just call this 'corporate policy' when the bulk of it is mandates coming down from different levels of govt. Federal state and local govts are requiring it for their own employees and for contractors and for businesses with over 100 employees, at least until the court battles regarding that are finished, and thats where the almost all of the resistance is coming from, most likely because most small companies that don't contract with govt simply arent mandating the vaccine.

Furthermore, employees agree to the company policy when they are hired. Altering the company policy afterward to include something additional that the employee is unwilling to do is effectively altering the contract to work and should be viewed as creating a new contract and rehiring (or not) the employee. Suppose for example the employer decided they were going to cut the employees wages by half, or suddenly require a certification for their position that they don't have. Those would both be grounds for UI compensable termination. So should be the added requirement after-the-fact of covid vaccination (unless universal vaccination were written into their job description when they were hired, of course).

Whats effectively happening is that employers are saying to the unvaccinated 'you no longer meet the requirements for this job because we changed the requirements for this job after we hired you. That does happen in the professional world, and when it does, the people that lose their job as a result are eligible for unemployment. Trying to make a different situation out of covid vaccination is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to punish and literally starve people into compliance. Thats precisely the sort of coersion that we signed a treaty vowing to never engage in after we hung a bunch of Nazi's for doing it.

 

You Leftists never cease to amaze me. Do you know the risk of a healthy young adult dying from CV-19 is astronomical. The same cannot be said for the 65+ crowd with at risk health conditions. Why I had to explain this to you is ridiculous.

 

I fully support helping out those who lose their jobs for refusing to put something in their body that they don't want.