denial of unemployment claims due to refusal to take vaccine

But that seems like a little bit of an artificially imposed consequence.

Not necessarily a natural consequence.


I disagreed with the same use of that type of logic when it came to another completely different issue also:
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom From Consequences. (post #2)

 

Remember, the main point of this thread is only about whether or not they get unemployment compensation, not whether the employer can fire them.

The unemployment compensation isn't very much either, something else to consider.

 

it has to do with if the employer fires them, when they do, do they get unemployment

I say yes they can fire them, and yes they get unemployment for being fired if they qualify, just like anyone else

 

This is what we have a legislative branch for. Unemployment compensation is written in statute. What constitutes an unfair labor practice, or illegal discrimination at the workplace are also sitting in statute from which the Employment Division and the Labor Board draw up their language for guidelines.

If I were writing this bill. There would be a requirement that all employers such as Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Memory Care settings, ALS, or in home care through a corporation for geriatrics or with the disabled, demand proof of vaccination for Covid and that proof be in file for the state inspectors to see not only in the annual CPS survey, but in any complaint survey. Its not just the virus that is devastating our elderly, its the fear of it getting into the building, and how it has changed their entire lifestyle. What we have to do to isolate this, to keep this from killing en masse, is emotionally traumatizing, and it simply cannot be sustained for much longer. People are not eating as well. They are not getting consistent physical or occupational or speech therapy,. Many are refusing to go to the dentist, or podiatrist or to the optometrist. A lot are refusing to leave their rooms even when it is deemed safe. they are seriously depressed and staff morale is non-existent. Of course, I would also require those employers to pay any uninsured costs accrued for those vaccinations.

As for the rest. If employers want to require it as a condition of employment, I am fine with that. If the legislative branch decides to pay unemployment compensation to anti-vaxers, they are going to have to find the funds, because this system is already broken under the stress. Where is the money, and who's taxes are going to pay for the anti vaxer to be stubborn?

 

The issue is whether they should be allowed to qualify.

 

These workers had to pay into a fund for just such a rainy day.

We are not just talking about free money from the government. If I can draw an analogy, it would be like paying into an insurance fund every year, and suddenly when something finally goes wrong, there's a dispute about whether the insurance should cover it.

The employer usually doesn't want employees to be able to claim unemployment because then the employer has to pay a part of it and their future premiums (which they are required to pay by government) can go up.

 

Just to be clear, while the direct funds come from employee contributions to the fund, once the fund starts heading into trouble, they can borrow from the US treasury. At the beginning of 2020 before any shutdown, 22 states were sitting below the recommended standard for trust fund solvency, and one state still owed the Treasury 63 million.https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2020.pdf

 

I realize I was unclear. See post #32. I don't particularly want these businesses to have to foot the bill for the anti-vaxxer either.

I prefer we subsidize the implementation of a vigorous vaccine program, not subsidize against it.

 

I understand that sentiment, but I don't think you can really lay all the blame on the workers for being fired in this situation.

The business might not have to keep them hired, but the workers also shouldn't have to be vaccinated if they do not want to.

Isn't that a similar situation to an employer deciding to have to lay off employees for some other reason? It might not be the employer's fault (for example the business could be forced to lay off some employees due to economic circumstance), but they still have to pay part of the unemployment compensation.

 

I am going to shock you lot

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsi...strengthening-immunisation-for-young-children

 

I read somewhere that a certain Democrat official has now suggested that one way to entice the reluctant ones would be to pay them $1500 to take the vaccine.

 

This one is in the hands of the employee entirely. They are literally choosing not to remain employed when they decide not to get that vaccine. To me its like an employee who scheduled days are changed so that they no longer can have Saturday off. They can choose to work the new schedule including Saturdays, or they can choose to find a job that will provide them their Saturday off. They cannot file for unemployment and expect their former employer to foot the bill because they like to spend Saturday with their spouse. Here, the employee's remedy is to find an employer who does not require that vaccine, and who is not working directly with geriatric patients and apply there. The business should not have to foot the bill because an employee does not want to do what it takes to stay employed. .

 

Blackjack has the same odds. I'm not an anti vaccer but I am not an idiot to believe that when the first public vaccine comes out that it will be the savior of the virus...

lol

 

sounds good to me

 

While that is possible, my guess is that the vaccine will not be available for the masses for quite awhile. My state's first round of the subzero shipments won't even be enough to cover 1/10th of critical hospital staff from what I have read. It will be 2022 or 2023 before your burger flippers will have access to it.

 

as I said, yes, they should qualify, as long as they do not do anything that would disqualify them in addition to just refusing to take the vaccine

example of denial, damaging company property cause you're upset the vaccine is required... do that, you get denied

 

If that were my claim, I should be nominated for a Nobel Price in Basic Human Logic and Common Sense.

But the reasoning is not too hard: you vaccinate, you don't get infected... which means you don't infect others and, therefore, you're not a health risk.

Do many Trump loyalists believe that this reasoning is somehow... hard?

Oh yeah! Nothing more fun than getting a needle inserted in your arm with stuff that's going to leave it hurting all day, right? We definitely need an "excuse".

So this is a communist virus? My God! Why did I think I should take you seriously?

 

In my state if you're fired you're out of luck getting unemployment, however you CAN appeal, HAR HAR.....

 

True, unless they are represented by a union in which case the terms and conditions of the labor agreement would govern.

 

Your side seems to believe that anything can be justified if you can find some reason for it.
The question is one of whether the ends really justify the means.
Your side seems to have little qualm about government making decisions for people, just because we think that decision is probably the best choice.

Maybe you are so far gone you won't even be able to realize what is wrong that logic.

Well, I guess that's why you are what you are (politically).

 

Vaccines are so "safe" the manufactures are virtually immune to 99% of damage their products may cause...and folks wonder why people dont trust them....SMDH...

 

And it can be very difficult to prove that a health problem was actually caused by a vaccine in court.

When it is a rare side-effect that the vast majority of the population will not experience. And all the more so with biased judges or biased juries when the defendant pharmaceutical company brings in a medical expert who will tell them that the vaccine saves lives, and that these type of lawsuits could jeopardize people getting that vaccine in the future, and so they should not hold the pharmaceutical company responsible if they really want to save lives.

 

Ha! That's hilarious!

So you say that my "side" believes that something is reasonable if there is a reason for it.

Something tells me you won't grasp how nonsensical what you just said is.

Anybody who choses people dying over not going to church for a while is not normal. And has very questionable moral values.

Let's see... you being what you are politically.. Explain how not refraining from attending church services for a while, because that WILL (not maybe.. it will) cause people to die, is justifiable under YOUR logic. And the people who die are not only the pigheaded who insist on going. They are their family, co-workers, ... somebody they interact with....

Explain!

 

Maybe what didn't occur to you is, there's a difference between reason and adequate reason.

And, in addition to that, just because the good outweighs the bad isn't automatically appropriately adequate justification for forcing that on people.
You really should be required to make a stronger argument than that.

 

Good idea - kudos on this thread.

Personally, I look at this two ways. First of all, I think a line needs to be drawn where the requirement to vaccinate is rational, reasonable and consistent, especially for existing employees. Most jobs don't require people to get vaccinated for other communicable diseases such as influenza. After that, I think employees and employers should be left to the freedom to decide what is best for themselves and let the consequences be what they may, including the denial of unemployment compensation.