denial of unemployment claims due to refusal to take vaccine

One of the big things that are likely to become an issue next year is people being denied unemployment claims after they get fired from their job for refusing to be vaccinated.

Many employers will claim that this constitutes "voluntary unemployment", and many courts are likely going to agree.

Maybe we should start discussing this now before it becomes an issue.

 

Arizona is an example of a state with 'employment at will' which simply means you can be fired for any thing at any time. All states aren't the same.

 

I'm glad I'm retired. I'm not taking the vaccine, just as I don't take flu vaccines.

 

Which brings us to the possibility that a meme that I saw this morning could have quite a bit of truth in it.

 

I think that's a great idea. Vaccination should be required to apply for Federal employment. If somebody applies for a federal job and they are rejected for lack of vaccination. They do that now with drug testing, if I'm not mistaken.

And most private businesses are likely to also require it. It's not a matter of "punishing" fanatics who refuse to vaccinate. It's a matter of public health. You don't want these loonies infecting your clients.

So yes! Not vaccinating is definitely voluntary unemployment.

 

But I'm pretty sure that being a health risk to your clients should be grounds for dismissal in any state.

 

That is your claim that not being vaccinated is a health risk.

Others see that as just an excuse.

Unfortunately, this virus is like a wet dream for those who believe more in the communist-collective mindset, that the individual's choices affect everyone else in society and therefore all the decision-making power should be handed over to the collective. Because yes, there certainly is an element of truth to that when it comes to any contagious disease. It can also be used as an excuse and slippery slope to take away individual choice, when it is not really justified.

 

Now to find a religion that forbids vaccination and 'convert'.

 

I think you will find vaccinations are a requirement for many healthcare jobs

 

No I think you will find that the profession that does the research about vaccine effectiveness KNOW that not being vaccinated is a health risk

 

Vaccines can definitely be a health risk. I'm not an anti-vaccer by any means, but to say vaccines aren't a health risk is not true for new viruses. It's trial and error...

 

related thread:
Lawsuit Filed Against Merck on Behalf of Young Man Allegedly Injured by Gardasil

 

Did not say that they are risk free BUT they mitigate a far far far larger risk

 

But we are talking about taking away choice from individual people.

I personally would rather be intentionally exposed to this virus than be injected with all the vaccines in existence, and take my chances with those.

 

Depends on the stage of the vaccine.

 

OK you lot

Most of you (I hope) will have had a tetanus vaccine sometime in your lives. And yet Tetanus is not a contagious disease, happens only rarely under certain circumstances and you risk of dying from it is reasonably low - so why vaccinate against it?

And yes I know enough about theses diseases to know the answer but humour me as we work through this

 

No one lives a completely unfettered life

 

so your saying employers may not hire anti-vaxxers for safety reasons and should that count as a reason to get unemployment

I have to say yes, same as getting ugly face tattoos, ect.... if they are unemployed, they are unemployed and get the same rules as everyone else

unemployment benefits eventually run out, so not a huge issue

 

I really don't think you can compare getting facial tattoos with not getting vaccinated.

We are talking about something unnatural here, that could potentially expose the individual to risk, and may not truly be absolutely necessary for their job.

And another irony I will point out here, many of the same individuals who would support a law barring employers from being allowed to discriminate against workers because of tattoos would also support employees not being allowed to get unemployment if they are fired by their employer for not getting vaccinated.

 

Even vaccines that have been on the market for years have side effects - that is why the VAERS program. But again it is risk v benefit

 

many employers will not want to hire them, for safety concerns, would you want one working at a nursing home, day care, ect....

just like people do not want to hire people with obnoxious face tattoos if they deal with the public

 

Which could be understandable, and maybe should be an employer's choice, but we are not talking about employers not being allowed to stop employing people who do not take the vaccine. We are talking about these people who are fired by their employer being able to get temporary unemployment, like other workers who were fired for reasons not having to do with fault of the worker.

 

What is the difference?

 

yes, and I said just like any other thing, such as getting a face tattoo and being fired, that yes, they should get unemployment... same rules as everyone else

 

you would still have the choice... but choices have consequences when those choice can affect the safety of others, then the employer has to make a choice and yes that employers choice has consequences, such as the employee qualifying for unemployment benefits