denial of unemployment claims due to refusal to take vaccine

The problem is the issue I am discussing in this thread doesn't really have anything to do with employees and employers being left to decide what is best for themselves.

Seems a lot of people in this thread are not able to understand that.
Do you understand how unemployment payments work?

Unemployment compensation is really a government-imposed thing, so we are talking about how government policy will base its decisions on the decisions of the employees and employers.


Employers are taxed to pay into a fund, and then government dispenses money from this fund to employees who are terminated for "involuntary" reasons by their employer.
https://www.unemployment-services.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Oftentimes there are disputes about whether the termination was actually "involuntary" or not.
If an employer gets too many (successful) unemployment claims from their former employees, the future taxes they have to pay go up.

 

FYI, I edited my post before you responded and I read this post.

I get the point of your thread - should people receive UI benefits - and I thought I addressed that matter when I stated that a rational, reasonable and consistent line needs to be drawn in order to determine whether or not someone would be able to receive those benefits.

Furthermore, I will add that these are exceptional times and there are people who are not willing to be rational, reasonable and consistent about this, so I'm willing to consider making an exception in this case. We've got enough unemployed people in this country already and we don't need vaccination zealots needlessly destroying more lives.

 

Simple answer to most of this: HIPPA. Unless having or not having a vaccine has a direct impact on the job being performed, it's not a matter of co-workers, it's a matter of patients.

Not all jobs involve patients.

 

Yes... "adequate" is a matter of opinion.

To outweigh the bad there would have to be adequate justification for forcing it on people if necessary. If there isn't adequate justification that would mean it does not outweigh the bad.

I hate to break it to you, but you're the one making the argument. Not me. I'm just pointing out the fact that your argument is ridiculous. But I do agree that your argument is weak.