There is no reason for a primary care physician to know this level of detail. You could make an argument for someone who's been diagnosed with current mental health issues, but I still don't think a patient should be required to disclose that level of info.dargscisyhp said:ramblin_ag02 said:RAB91 said:ramblin_ag02 said:RAB91 said:Quote:
And whether you have a firearm is certainly a fair question. I ask every parent with small children, because firearm accidents are potentially deadly. I've had plenty of people who sleep with a pistol under their pillow and shotgun under their bed. That's obviously a bad idea if you have a 4 year old in the home or staying the weekend. Also, firearms are the most common method of suicide for adult men, and the rates of that are increasing every year. Not to mention the fact that many of our demented elderly still have working firearms well past the point of being a danger to others. So identifying the causes of major accidents and self harm and making sure people are mentally stable and taking proper precautions is right up our alley.
Curious, what about a firearm in particular makes it fall within the purview of a medical professional? I presume you aren't asking about things like motorcycle riding or other risk-taking behaviors people choose to partake in.
lost job due to no vax
32,927 Views |
469 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Reload8098
Not trying to be snarky here, but would you agree, given the case of your patient dying of a heart attack last month, that maybe the hospital's decision to convert all its CCU beds to Covid beds was a bad decision or at least puts as much responsibility on the hospital for your patients daeth as what your argument puts on the Covid patient who was still unvaccinated and was given the last converted CCU bed?ramblin_ag02 said:
Acute heart attack patients go the CCU (Cardiac Care unit). In our case, all the CCU beds had been converted to ICU beds to take care of the surge of COVID patients. Our patient was too sick for a regular hospital bed, so the larger hospitals couldn't take him. And only the large hospitals have facilities to perform cardiac catheterization, which is pretty much the only life saving procedure for people like this.
Catag94 said:Not trying to be snarky here, but would you agree, given the case of your patient dying of a heart attack last month, that maybe the hospital's decision to convert all its CCU beds to Covid beds was a bad decision or at least puts as much responsibility on the hospital for your patients daeth as what your argument puts on the Covid patient who was still unvaccinated and was given the last converted CCU bed?ramblin_ag02 said:
Acute heart attack patients go the CCU (Cardiac Care unit). In our case, all the CCU beds had been converted to ICU beds to take care of the surge of COVID patients. Our patient was too sick for a regular hospital bed, so the larger hospitals couldn't take him. And only the large hospitals have facilities to perform cardiac catheterization, which is pretty much the only life saving procedure for people like this.
Is this basically not more or less the same as the much maligned idea that (unvaccinated) Covid patients should not be treated at the hospital?
Zobel said:
Sometimes choices are binary. I'm not very sympathetic for most of the people I see with objections to the vaccines. In general they seem to me to be politically motivated, a part of the culture wars which fall down red-blue lines. I'm not very sympathetic towards that in general, so I don't see why I should be sympathetic to this particular expression of it.I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I would be very surprised if anyone that has a legitimate medical condition that prevents them from safely taking the vaccine suffers a negative consequence from not taking it accordingly.Quote:
I have a lot of friends and family with medical issues or strong pro-life beliefs that will be forced to compromise their health or beliefs in the face of this.
As for the strong pro-life beliefs, again for me it is an issue of consistency. I support people who have convictions about this. I don't support hypocrites who take all manner of medications tested or manufactured with those same cell lines who then claim that's the reason they won't be vaccinated. That's just lying, using your religion to justify your (probable) political stance. And if you do suffer for doing what's right, you should rejoice. St Peter is wise on this -Quote:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to the king as the supreme authority, or to governors as those sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Treat everyone with high regard: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
Servants, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but even to those who are unreasonable. For if anyone endures the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God, this is to be commended. How is it to your credit if you are beaten for doing wrong and you endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
If someone I know needs help, I don't really care why. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree or empathize with their choices when I help. Love doesn't require this. I'm perfectly capable of thinking what they did was wrong or foolish while also having sympathy and compassion on their situation. I do it all the time with my kids when they do stupid things and get hurt, especially when I warned them not to.
Losing your job over tribal politics is stupid. If the vaccine is an example of that - and only that person can really know the truth - then it qualifies as stupid.
Yes, it's quite obvious you don't sympathize. You seem quite content to project your bias onto people you've never met with little reservation (which is a break from your normal persona on here).
There is a perverse irony as a follower of Christ that you think it's your place to judge others for hypocrisy or that you're able to determine consistency. Your Christian beliefs have changed over time along with everyone else's. Many have switched churches during this time and are different from who they were before. It's not your place to determine if someone is consistent enough for you to believe them.
Macarthur said:
Geez, this thread is like watching humanity devolve before our very eyes.
Drama much. C'mon.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The perverse irony of judging someone as not being sympathetic, then turn around and accuse them off judging others.
PacifistAg said:
The perverse irony of judging someone as not being sympathetic, then turn around and accuse them off judging others.
He said multiple times in his post he's not sympathetic and he doesn't believe that people are sincere (consistent) in their objections. If I've misinterpreted what appears to me to be very apparent I'll edit my response. I thought he was very clear.
Edit: he says he's not sympathetic three times in the first paragraph. What on earth are you reading that it's a mischaracterization?
Edit 2: he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Edit 3: this is the exact point I was making. Neither of you seem to much care about other believers facing this. You're here to tell them to go to work elsewhere because they're stupid (his words) for doing this unless they meet his criteria based on broad observation of the general populace.
Probably and I certainly don't advocate for this.dargscisyhp said:Catag94 said:Not trying to be snarky here, but would you agree, given the case of your patient dying of a heart attack last month, that maybe the hospital's decision to convert all its CCU beds to Covid beds was a bad decision or at least puts as much responsibility on the hospital for your patients death as what your argument puts on the Covid patient who was still unvaccinated and was given the last converted CCU bed?ramblin_ag02 said:
Acute heart attack patients go the CCU (Cardiac Care unit). In our case, all the CCU beds had been converted to ICU beds to take care of the surge of COVID patients. Our patient was too sick for a regular hospital bed, so the larger hospitals couldn't take him. And only the large hospitals have facilities to perform cardiac catheterization, which is pretty much the only life saving procedure for people like this.
Is this basically not more or less the same as the much maligned idea that (unvaccinated) Covid patients should not be treated at the hospital?
Maybe it is drama, but do you think it's incredibly odd that in 2021, college educated people are arguing about how vaccines work and why it's important for people to take them?dermdoc said:Macarthur said:
Geez, this thread is like watching humanity devolve before our very eyes.
Drama much. C'mon.
I mean this is something that has been settled decades ago.
I gave you 3 very good reasons
1) Mental health issues such as depression, bipolar, schizophrenia in young and middle age adults
2) Dementia in older people
3) Having children in the home too young to learn gun safety
Accidents are the leading cause of injury and death for children and young adults. So preventing accidents is literally the biggest part of my job when seeing a healthy young man. Firearms and automobiles are two of the most common causes of deadly accidents. Any primary doctor not asking a healthy adult about these things isn't doing their job.
My typical gun questions: "Do you own a firearm?" "Can your 5 year old kid or 70 year old demented mother access it?" "Are you depressed, suicidal or homicidal?" If all those answers are good then I'm cool. I like shooting guns and have no agenda aside from doing my job to prevent fatal accidents and suicides.
1) Mental health issues such as depression, bipolar, schizophrenia in young and middle age adults
2) Dementia in older people
3) Having children in the home too young to learn gun safety
Accidents are the leading cause of injury and death for children and young adults. So preventing accidents is literally the biggest part of my job when seeing a healthy young man. Firearms and automobiles are two of the most common causes of deadly accidents. Any primary doctor not asking a healthy adult about these things isn't doing their job.
My typical gun questions: "Do you own a firearm?" "Can your 5 year old kid or 70 year old demented mother access it?" "Are you depressed, suicidal or homicidal?" If all those answers are good then I'm cool. I like shooting guns and have no agenda aside from doing my job to prevent fatal accidents and suicides.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
You seem to be missing some key pieces of what I'm saying. There's very specific things I don't sympathize with. "You don't sympathize" is incomplete.
I'm not sympathetic to politically motivated behavior in general, which includes politically motivated objections to the vaccines. This is based on the reasons people give for their objections. I don't know how this is projecting bias. What bias in particular am I projecting, and onto whom?
I explicitly said I do support people who choose to abstain from medicines tested with fetal cell lines derived from abortions. I also said I don't support people who I observe to have hypocritical and inconsistent stances on this - for example, people who claim a religious objection to the vaccines but use Regeneron. That isn't judging them, it certainly isn't condemning them, but its objecting to their behavior. And if the reason they happen to be hypocritical is to rationalize a political stance, that's doubly wrong.
I don't know what you mean about consistent enough for me to believe them. I'm happy to take them at their word - for better and worse.
What I said was stupid was losing your job for tribal politics. I'm happy to stand by that statement. If you're losing your job for a reason other than tribal politics, then the statement doesn't apply to you.
I'm not sympathetic to politically motivated behavior in general, which includes politically motivated objections to the vaccines. This is based on the reasons people give for their objections. I don't know how this is projecting bias. What bias in particular am I projecting, and onto whom?
I explicitly said I do support people who choose to abstain from medicines tested with fetal cell lines derived from abortions. I also said I don't support people who I observe to have hypocritical and inconsistent stances on this - for example, people who claim a religious objection to the vaccines but use Regeneron. That isn't judging them, it certainly isn't condemning them, but its objecting to their behavior. And if the reason they happen to be hypocritical is to rationalize a political stance, that's doubly wrong.
I don't know what you mean about consistent enough for me to believe them. I'm happy to take them at their word - for better and worse.
I quoted St Peter. If you have a sincere religious objection, and that conviction results in suffering, that is commendable. That has nothing to do with what I may or may not be doing through my church or otherwise to minister to people who are struggling to make ends meet for this reason or any other. I thought I was pretty clear that me helping someone wasn't really contingent upon my opinion of why they need help.Quote:
Edit 2: he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Edit 3: this is the exact point I was making. Neither of you seem to much care about other believers facing this. You're here to tell them to go to work elsewhere because they're stupid (his words) for doing this unless they meet his criteria based on broad observation of the general populace.
What I said was stupid was losing your job for tribal politics. I'm happy to stand by that statement. If you're losing your job for a reason other than tribal politics, then the statement doesn't apply to you.
How many people tell you that it's none of your business? That's what I would likely do.
Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
A few. Not many. People who are suspicious of the motives of their doctor usually find another doctor. When those refuse I just say what I told yall about accidents and self harm. If they still don't want to talk about it, then I move on. Most of the people that initially don't want to talk about it are very open and proud about their gun safety procedures.Dilettante said:
How many people tell you that it's none of your business? That's what I would likely do.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
This is all well and good UNTIL they can't. For example, some do not wish to force vaccinations but the Biden Admin, through OSHA, is attempting to remove their choice in the matter. This is where it gets political and where I believe become government overreach within the framework of our constitution.PacifistAg said:Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
No, this is a different post. You don't lead paragraphs with sentences using the conjunction 'but' to serve as an immediate rebuttal to what I posted. There aren't sweeping generalities early on.
The fact that you explicitly said you'll believe them matters because your first post doesn't read that way.
The fact that you explicitly said you'll believe them matters because your first post doesn't read that way.
Well, first I'm opposed to the new OSHA rule. I'm opposed to government in and of itself. But, you aren't really presenting the OSHA rule accurately. It's not forcing vaccinations on anyone. The rule gives the employee (only of companies of a certain size) the choice between vaccination or weekly testing. A test violates nobody's conscience, unless of course they're viewing this just as politically as the ones passing said rule.Catag94 said:This is all well and good UNTIL they cant. For example, some do not wish to force vaccinations but the Biden Admin, through OSHA, is attempting to remove their choice in the matter. This is where it gets political and where I believe become government overreach within the framework of our constitution.PacifistAg said:Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
But, it's nice that you suddenly care about government overreach, only a century after the begin of federal drug prohibition, restrictive immigration policies (the Constitution makes no mention of the power to restrict immigration), and 50 years of OSHA-mandated rules on the private sector.
PacifistAg said:Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
Like I said, you believe in a labor market that doesn't exist for the average American.
And you don't believe in the rights of private business owners. We are at an impasse. I choose freedom. Just don't go whining about government overreach when that's exactly what you advocate because you have a sense of entitlement.AGC said:PacifistAg said:Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
Like I said, you believe in a labor market that doesn't exist for the average American.
One positive I've noticed is that some companies are enacting vaccine surcharges on insurance premiums. Can't prove you're vaccinated or that you have a valid medical disqualifier, then you pay a higher premium. If the unvaxxed are going to cause the company to incur greater medical costs, then much like smokers who often have to pay a surcharge, so will the unvaxxed.
And fat people.PacifistAg said:
One positive I've noticed is that some companies are enacting vaccine surcharges on insurance premiums. Can't prove you're vaccinated or that you have a valid medical disqualifier, then you pay a higher premium. If the unvaxxed are going to cause the company to incur greater medical costs, then much like smokers who often have to pay a surcharge, so will the unvaxxed.
Well, I've never seen any company with that type of surcharge, but there are definitely ways that it can be done if they're creative. BMI is a horrible metric though. Regardless, the principle is the same, and companies are well within their rights to enact such measures...no matter what the entitled believe.
What makes you think it's sudden?
I've seen nothing from you that would indicate you hold a consistent view on these matters. But I'm glad you oppose drug prohibition, repealing restrictive immigration policy, and other such measures. You know...muh Consitution!Catag94 said:
What makes you think it's sudden?
I'm curious, do you believe a company should be able to discriminate who they hire based on race? Sex? Gender preference (sorry, I don't know how to phrase this, but basically transgenderism)? Age? Health condition (i.e. disability, vaccination status, BMI)? If you answer no to any of these, what separates one from the other morally (I don't care about the legal argument).PacifistAg said:
Well, I've never seen any company with that type of surcharge, but there are definitely ways that it can be done if they're creative. BMI is a horrible metric though. Regardless, the principle is the same, and companies are well within their rights to enact such measures...no matter what the entitled believe.
Yes, I believe a company should be able to discriminate for any reason. It's also why I don't understand why everyone hyperventilates at boycotts, or what they incorrectly label "cancel culture". I don't think the proper solution in the Colorado bakery case was a lawsuit. I think the proper solution would have been to make the public aware of discriminatory practices, and if the public wishes to punish such behavior, they could do so with their pocketbooks.dargscisyhp said:I'm curious, do you believe a company should be able to discriminate who they hire based on race? Sex? Gender preference (sorry, I don't know how to phrase this, but basically transgenderism)? Age? Health condition (i.e. disability, vaccination status, BMI)? If you answer no to any of these, what separates one from the other morally (I don't care about the legal argument).PacifistAg said:
Well, I've never seen any company with that type of surcharge, but there are definitely ways that it can be done if they're creative. BMI is a horrible metric though. Regardless, the principle is the same, and companies are well within their rights to enact such measures...no matter what the entitled believe.
Now, as a transgender woman, part of me was happy to see employment protections for trans people, but at the end of the day, if my company fired me for being a trans woman, I wouldn't sue because I believe it would be their right to do so. I would simply bring my case before the public, attempt to persuade people to no longer purchase their product, and use free market forces to either initiate a change in policy or see the business shut down.
Btw, since you mentioned how to phrase it, "transgenderism" or "gender preference" is not the correct choice, imo. It implies it's an ideology or something freely chosen. I would recommend "gender identity".
PacifistAg said:And you don't believe in the rights of private business owners. We are at an impasse. I choose freedom. Just don't go whining about government overreach when that's exactly what you advocate because you have a sense of entitlement.AGC said:PacifistAg said:Good or not, they're being fired for violating company policy. Companies are free to set their policies as they see fit. You can comply, or you can take your labor elsewhere. Stop acting entitled, as if you or any of these people should be "above the law" when it comes to company policy. I deal with this type of entitled thinking all the time as an HR Manager.Quote:
he says it's good to be fired from your job. From a man not facing that choice please tell me how he's ministering to his fellow believers.
Don't like the policy? Well, at the end of the day, you either comply or leave. It's as simple as that. Also, I've yet to see any company who does not allow for exceptions for those medically incapable of receiving the vaccine. But if a brother or sister-in-Christ, or non-believer, lose their job because they refuse to comply with the policy of the company they freely choose to work for, then that's really on them. They aren't a victim. I will care for them and provide assistance as needed, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it by pretending that they did something other than lose their job due to violation of company policy.
Like I said, you believe in a labor market that doesn't exist for the average American.
No one believes in the general 'rights' of private business owners. That battle was fought over 100 years ago with labor laws and unions. We've since added laws regarding discrimination that are slowly eroding those rights as a society with lawsuits by, for instance, gay employees suing religious employers for expecting them to follow their beliefs. The state recognizes limitations to this and I doubt you're about to argue they should be able to employ racism for hiring decisions. What we're debating is something arbitrary where different political teams argue about just how reasonable it is while OSHA is used to threaten them.
Regarding the absurdity of your idea, let's take a 40 year old middle manager with an MBA in a town of 400K like boise, ID. There are three major employers there and beyond that he's looking at a local business. Probably has a family and kids. So when he starts applying at local banks or wherever because the three major employers have shot requirements, who hires him? No experience, likely to go elsewhere if he can get his old job back, can't provide him with much upward mobility. Just move right? That's great but what if his family and church are there? The idea of complete labor mobility doesn't work in his favor, in fact it erodes his support and he gets glib responses like yours when he decries the injustice of it. It could be College Station. It could be anywhere. One doesn't need to 'whine' or feel 'entitled' to object to how you classify people that aren't on your political team.
Edit: didn't see your prior response. I do think there should be limitations on employment policies and they're not a blanket unnecessary thing. One doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Also your example of unaxed people being a heavier burden on companies than vaxed ones goes out the window with breakthrough cases. If a bank has a teller that spreads it and kills people while being vaxed it doesn't make sense.
You work in HR. You're basically the government of the corporate world.Quote:
Well, first I'm opposed to the new OSHA rule. I'm opposed to government in and of itself.
PacifistAg said:
Btw, since you mentioned how to phrase it, "transgenderism" or "gender preference" is not the correct choice, imo. It implies it's an ideology or something freely chosen. I would recommend "gender identity".
Thanks for answering, and noted.
The injustice of what?Quote:
when he decries the injustice of it.
This entire narrative is predicated on the idea that there is injustice being done toward this person. I think this is begging the question.
Just because violations of rights are accepted doesn't mean the rights don't exist.Quote:
No one believes in the general 'rights' of private business owners. That battle was fought over 100 years ago with labor laws and unions. We've since added laws regarding discrimination that are slowly eroding those rights as a society with lawsuits by, for instance, gay employees suing religious employers for expecting them to follow their beliefs.
See my previous response asking me about discriminatory practices.Quote:
The state recognizes limitations to this and I doubt you're about to argue they should be able to employ racism for hiring decisions. What we're debating is something arbitrary where different political teams argue about just how reasonable it is while OSHA is used to threaten them.
Again, sucks for him, but he's not entitled to demand someone compensate him for his labor. It also has nothing to do with my political team. Heck, what even is my "political team"? I don't believe you're entitled to infringe upon the rights of people who start and build a business. They can set their policy as you see fit. If they have marketable skills, they are free to search the labor market to find an employer they deem a good fit. But they don't have the right to demand that an employer bow to them, especially when to do so would completely invalidate a policy that the employer believes is the right thing for their business.Quote:
Regarding the absurdity of your idea, let's take a 40 year old middle manager with an MBA in a town of 400K like boise, ID. There are three major employers there and beyond that he's looking at a local business. Probably has a family and kids. So when he starts applying at local banks or wherever because the three major employers have shot requirements, who hires him? No experience, likely to go elsewhere if he can get his old job back, can't provide him with much upward mobility. Just move right? That's great but what if his family and church are there? The idea of complete labor mobility doesn't work in his favor, in fact it erodes his support and he gets glib responses like yours when he decries the injustice of it. It could be College Station. It could be anywhere. One doesn't need to 'whine' or feel 'entitled' to object to how you classify people that aren't on your political team.
One not need to whine or feel entitled, yet you still continue to do so. Go figure.
I'm sorry you lack the ability to see the huge difference between corporate HR and government.Martin Q. Blank said:You work in HR. You're basically the government of the corporate world.Quote:
Well, first I'm opposed to the new OSHA rule. I'm opposed to government in and of itself.
Apparently when I fire someone for violating company policy, I've committed some great injustice against them. The inmates are to run the asylum, apparently.Zobel said:The injustice of what?Quote:
when he decries the injustice of it.
This entire narrative is predicated on the idea that there is injustice being done toward this person. I think this is begging the question.
I can't wait to come in to work in a bathing suit, cuss out everyone, and flip off my boss. I mean, sure we have dress codes, policies on treating others with respect, and insubordination, but if they fire me, I'll just scream about some grave injustice because how dare they hold me to the policies set forth.
Btw, for those like Catag94, I know where you stand on employees being fired for violating their company's COVID vaccine policy.
To change course a little though, do you believe companies should be able to charge higher insurance premiums for unvaxxed employees? Especially given that they're more likely to become seriously ill with COVID and require hospitalization, and thereby higher medical costs.
To change course a little though, do you believe companies should be able to charge higher insurance premiums for unvaxxed employees? Especially given that they're more likely to become seriously ill with COVID and require hospitalization, and thereby higher medical costs.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
15h ago
8.1k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
17h ago
1.3k
37:53
15h ago
989
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
Three Things: Signing Day approaching, QB recruiting & more
by Jason Howell