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

Sounds like either you work for the government, or your employer is self insured. That is not the standard for State UE (or UI if you like) funds to have that access.

 

The real concern for me here is this also adds to inflation. People need to start thinking about the economy more so than a political win.

 

Not concerned that experimental medical procedures becoming a requirement to keep your job? Last week a New York Times editor died of a heart attack 1 day after taking a Covid booster. He was less than 50 years old. Taking that booster was a REQUIREMENT for him to keep his job. Is his company liable for his death? No. Is the pharma company liable for his death? No.

There has never been a vaccine this lethal in my lifetime. Thousands have now died of the vaccine. Typical vaccines result in dozens of deaths, not thousands. Typical vaccines provide lifetime FULL immunity to the disease they target, not a few months of limited and imperfect protection. Typical vaccines don't require the federal government using force to make people take them.

 

so unemployment is high in red states cause Republicans are paying people to refuse the vaccine

 

Interesting, always though a community or society is based upon third person plural and not first person singular

 

.

Anecdotal narratives aren’t informative, and document for us where “thousands” of Americans have died directly from the Covid vaccine.

Flu vaccines don’t last a lifetime, and children are often required by the government to be vaccinated against certain diseases before being allowed to enter school

 

No, never even mentioned, rather that some Red States are rewarding people for not taking the vaccines which stands in direct contradiction to the Government’s means of addressing the pandemic

 

Okay.

 

The company policy violates their right to bodily autonomy. They would be at work otherwise. Thats what UE is for. Los Angeles let go of 100+ first responders because they refused to consume this pharm product. These are the same people that put themselves at risk before the extent of that risk was known and long before the vaccine existed. Should they be denied UE?

 

It was definitely the employment security dept of wa state, not a private entity. And I dont work for the govt.

 

“Right to bodily autonomy?” That’s a first, how would abortion fit in with your understanding of the “right to bodily autonomy?”

 

You are leaving out pertinent facts, but it wouldn't play as well to a specific crowd if you included those facts.

Companies, either voluntarily or involuntarily, terminated employees who decline the injection. Those employees, in certain states, are now eligible for unemployment benefits. They are subject to all existing requirements, rules and regulations pertaining to the UE of their State.

There, I gave you the proper wording. Your welcome.

 

What a brilliant, well thought-out argument.

Just to recap, these workers would be at work if it weren't for the company policy that violates their right to bodily autonomy. UE is for those that are out of work due to no fault of their own. Any objections from those that supported the enhanced handouts for the lazy only reveal what we already know; there is no genuine concern for workers.

 

No they are altering the unemployment rules and guidelines to accommodate them:

“Workers who quit or are fired for cause — including for defying company policy — are generally ineligible for jobless benefits. But Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas and Tennessee have carved out exceptions for those who won’t submit to the multi-shot coronavirus vaccine regimens that many companies now require”

 

Your personal opinion doesn't change anything about a employee not following company policy.
If one doesn't follow company policy, they can be fired. It's not rocket science.

Yes, if an employee doesn't follow company policy, they quit, get fired of their own making.

 

True. There is no reason an employers misguided beliefs should be used to deny benefits workers already paid for.

 

So States are taking actions to protect employees rights against a tyrannical federal government.

Odd, since the Federal Government has openly stated that they have given up on fighting the virus.

 

So anyone who quite a job, any job, for any reason, just don’t feel like working, has a beef with the boss, or wants to take a vacation, should get paid unemployment benefits?

Don’t know how many times I have to repeat the facts, these States are altering their current unemployment rules and guidelines to accommodate these people, normally, they, or someone who did the same under similar circumstances, would not receive benefits

 

I believe all of the States you just listed, have laws in place regarding mandated injections. So, if a company terminates an employee for not accepting an injection, they aren't 'defying' a company policy, they are abiding by a State Law.

 

How is paying people who quit their job protecting employees rights?

And the only time the Federal Government gave up on addressing Covid was in 2020, in fact, they also did their best trying to convince Americans it was no big deal

 

If they do, how can a State law supersede a Federal one?

 

States do not operate under the control of the federal government. The 10th amendment seems to be lost by many:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The same way states have legalized marijuana even though it is illegal federally.

The federal government doesn't get to control the States. They are not subordinate to the federal government.

 

You mean like unemployment being altered to give enhanced benefits and no requirement to prove efforts to find a job? Those supporting enhanced benefits are not in a position to criticize altering rules.

It is the same for me. Since you brought it up, how about companies threatening employees with termination for not proving they never had an abortion?

 

I hate to break it to you, but you are on a forum and may encounter personal opinions from time to time. My personal opinion does not change the fact that those who supported enhanced unemployment benefits, but oppose this move are hypocrites.

Lets play around with your personal opinion. An employer makes a policy that any employee that refuses to prove they never had an abortion will be terminated. Are we still denying them benefits they paid for?

 

You are entitled to your personal opinion. I only said, it doesn't matter.
Fail to comply with company policy, good chance one will get fired. Happens all the time.

I am male, I think that's proof enough I've never had an abortion.
But if that policy can withstand legal challenges, then yes, you fail to follow company policy, they have every right to fire you. That has always been the case.
Except in some unions, where it is difficult. But policies don't change in Unions without unions agreeing to those changes.