I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
lost job due to no vax
32,963 Views |
469 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Reload8098
Yeah, somehow you took your original statement and made it more stupid. Probably due to an ignorance of what HR actually does.Martin Q. Blank said:I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
To come up with rules to enforce to justify their existence. Like the government. Deep down you like the power.PacifistAg said:Yeah, somehow you took your original statement and made it more stupid. Probably due to an ignorance of what HR actually does.Martin Q. Blank said:I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
Ah okay. So you truly are just ignorant of what HR does. Got it.Martin Q. Blank said:To come up with rules to enforce to justify their existence. Like the government. Deep down you like the power.PacifistAg said:Yeah, somehow you took your original statement and made it more stupid. Probably due to an ignorance of what HR actually does.Martin Q. Blank said:I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
So no surcharge for smokers, unless you also have a surcharge for women of child-bearing age? Man, I never realized how many people here hate private business rights.RAB91 said:I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
Your answer reminds me of what I see on the tinfoil hate board (F16). "No, you can't do A, unless you also do B, C, D, E, F, G, and H first!" It's just a lame excuse to not do A, when you are incapable of forming an actual coherent argument against A.
RAB91 said:I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
I could go long with this.
Edit to add: especially if premiums weren't reduced for those being charged more post infection.
PacifistAg said:Ah okay. So you truly are just ignorant of what HR does. Got it.Martin Q. Blank said:To come up with rules to enforce to justify their existence. Like the government. Deep down you like the power.PacifistAg said:Yeah, somehow you took your original statement and made it more stupid. Probably due to an ignorance of what HR actually does.Martin Q. Blank said:I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
HR sux.
PacifistAg said:
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.
Lest you incorrectly judge where I stand on this, if a company chooses to implement the vaccine policy, I respect the company's right to do so and would not fault them for terminating employees who chose not to comply.
I don't believe the government should force companies to implement such policies.
Dilettante said:PacifistAg said:Ah okay. So you truly are just ignorant of what HR does. Got it.Martin Q. Blank said:To come up with rules to enforce to justify their existence. Like the government. Deep down you like the power.PacifistAg said:Yeah, somehow you took your original statement and made it more stupid. Probably due to an ignorance of what HR actually does.Martin Q. Blank said:I said you're the government of the corporate world. If you weren't opposed to the government, you'd probably work for it.PacifistAg said: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.
HR sux.
Oh, no doubt he's a troll who has long been obsessed with me, and HR can suck. But a few bad apples in HR certainly give us good ones a bad rap.
As you know I am pro vax. This is a totally different mechanism of action and is really not a vaccination but an encoding of mRNA. I think it is safe. But I understand the reluctance.Macarthur said: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.
And refusing to take a medical treatment has never caused humanity to devolve before our very eyes.
God is in total control.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
RAB91 said:I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
What in the world does this even mean?
You're in HR and you can't figure this out?PacifistAg said:So no surcharge for smokers, unless you also have a surcharge for women of child-bearing age? Man, I never realized how many people here hate private business rights.RAB91 said:I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
Your answer reminds me of what I see on the tinfoil hate board (F16). "No, you can't do A, unless you also do B, C, D, E, F, G, and H first!" It's just a lame excuse to not do A, when you are incapable of forming an actual coherent argument against A.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistency
If we charge more for one type of status that drives higher medical costs, you should be consistent IMO.
RAB91 said:You're in HR and you can't figure this out?PacifistAg said:So no surcharge for smokers, unless you also have a surcharge for women of child-bearing age? Man, I never realized how many people here hate private business rights.RAB91 said:I'd be ok with this under two conditions...PacifistAg said:
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.
- They do the same for smokers, fatties, women of child bearing age, etc
- They don't charge the premium to people with the superior natural immunity.
Your answer reminds me of what I see on the tinfoil hate board (F16). "No, you can't do A, unless you also do B, C, D, E, F, G, and H first!" It's just a lame excuse to not do A, when you are incapable of forming an actual coherent argument against A.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistency
If we charge more for one type of status that drives higher medical costs, you should be consistent IMO.
I love how conservatives are offended by this idea now while screaming about Obamacare for the last decade plus. What do you think was happening before Obamacare?
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.
Dude it's the post gigem responded to. It's one of the criticisms I clarified for you a few posts before that. I get that you're onboard with a vax mandate and sincerely hope no one dies from covid but this is obtuse.
That is what he does, sad actually.AGC said: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.
Dude it's the post gigem responded to. It's one of the criticisms I clarified for you a few posts before that. I get that you're onboard with a vax mandate and sincerely hope no one dies from covid but this is obtuse.
PacifistAg said:Private businesses have the right to set their policies as they see fit. You aren't entitled to work for them. If you cannot meet their terms of employment, you can find employment elsewhere. Stop acting entitled.Azeotroper said:
Ok how about "we will let you work here if you inject this in your body to protect you from dying from a pathogen with a 99.5% survivability." I'm glad my career choice was self employment. We just shrug our shoulders and say "whatever".
Kudos for you being self-employed. As a result, you can set your policies at your business as you see fit. Why would you deny other private businesses the same right?
They can't impose policies that violate your legally recognized civil rights.
AGC said: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.
Dude it's the post gigem responded to. It's one of the criticisms I clarified for you a few posts before that. I get that you're onboard with a vax mandate and sincerely hope no one dies from covid but this is obtuse.
I'm not onboard with a federal mandate. I'm doubly not onboard with an pseudo mandate through executive overreach in OSHA. We've had state and local vaccine requirements in the past, so I think those have precedent and are legal. I'm ambivalent toward those.
Who is gigem?
The point I'm making is what is the injustice? Where, specifically, is justice being denied? In a company requiring a vaccine as condition of employment? In a local public health department doing it? Or a state? Or a school district?
Does it matter what the penalty is? If it is $5 is it still injustice? If like in Texas it means during a pandemic an unvaccinated child may not be able to attend school is that injustice?
You're talking about hypotheticals - which is why I asked earlier whether you were describing something that actually happened or not.
Waving your hands and saying "this is injustice" is really confusing when it's not clear what is unjust.
What exactly do I do? Be specific, please.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:PacifistAg said:Private businesses have the right to set their policies as they see fit. You aren't entitled to work for them. If you cannot meet their terms of employment, you can find employment elsewhere. Stop acting entitled.Azeotroper said:
Ok how about "we will let you work here if you inject this in your body to protect you from dying from a pathogen with a 99.5% survivability." I'm glad my career choice was self employment. We just shrug our shoulders and say "whatever".
Kudos for you being self-employed. As a result, you can set your policies at your business as you see fit. Why would you deny other private businesses the same right?
They can't impose policies that violate your legally recognized civil rights.
This is nonsense.
Quote:
civil rights
/sivil rts/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
For example, companies can fire you for exercising your "political freedom" of speech if you tweet comments derogatory of your company. You don't have freedom of speech at your job. At my company, if you repeatedly purposely misgender a trans coworker, you can be fired. They'd have every legal right to do so.
The NFL could enact a policy prohibiting players from exercising their political freedoms on the clock, and they'd have every right to do so.
Quote:
Who is gigem?
I think he's referring to me, since I used to be GigEm01. My guess is he's trying to use the negative association with that name, even though he knows I'm nothing like I used to be. There's really no logical reason to refer to me by a handle I haven't used in a decade.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
This thread is fun.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
PacifistAg said:Quote:
Who is gigem?
I think he's referring to me, since I used to be GigEm01. My guess is he's trying to use the negative association with that name, even though he knows I'm nothing like I used to be. There's really no logical reason to refer to me by a handle I haven't used in a decade.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
Maybe he's just making reference to a legend?
And this is a perfect definition of a BC. This board gives F84 a run for their money. Sad really.Woodward said:
This thread is fun.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
RAB91 said:And this is a perfect definition of a BC. This board gives F84 a run for their money. Sad really.Woodward said:
This thread is fun.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
Fyi, grandparents aren't entitled to hold their grandchildren. Parents can set boundaries, and grandparents can respect them or deal with the consequences.
If they believe such a boundary will help keep their newborn safe, or their mother, then that's their prerogative. Stop acting like an entitled child.
PacifistAg said:RAB91 said:And this is a perfect definition of a BC. This board gives F84 a run for their money. Sad really.Woodward said:
This thread is fun.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
Fyi, grandparents aren't entitled to hold their grandchildren. Parents can set boundaries, and grandparents can respect them or deal with the consequences.
If they believe such a boundary will help keep their newborn safe, or their mother, then that's their prerogative. Stop acting like an entitled child.
Drama queen much?
And thankfully none of my family has gone full vaxhole yet. I've been able to hold all the newborns in the family the last 18 months, and they all survived.
I'm curious do you think using epithets like vaxhole, branch covidian, or libs helps communication? Or why do you do it?
RAB91 said:And this is a perfect definition of a BC. This board gives F84 a run for their money. Sad really.Woodward said:
This thread is fun.
My mom lives in CS and was adamantly against getting the vaccine.
After I had a baby I informed her that without a vaccine she would not be allowed to hold the baby.
Her protest lasted all of 2 hours after she found that out.
This was my rule prior to Covid too, frankly, for my previous child.
I still think of you as gig'em. Not as a negative but more due to how much your have transformed over the years. To be clear, i am not talking about your transition (if that is the right word) but your growth and maturity.
Knowing who you were adds weight to who you are.
Hope that makes sense.
Knowing who you were adds weight to who you are.
Hope that makes sense.
Zobel said:AGC said: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.
Dude it's the post gigem responded to. It's one of the criticisms I clarified for you a few posts before that. I get that you're onboard with a vax mandate and sincerely hope no one dies from covid but this is obtuse.
I'm not onboard with a federal mandate. I'm doubly not onboard with an pseudo mandate through executive overreach in OSHA. We've had state and local vaccine requirements in the past, so I think those have precedent and are legal. I'm ambivalent toward those.
Who is gigem?
The point I'm making is what is the injustice? Where, specifically, is justice being denied? In a company requiring a vaccine as condition of employment? In a local public health department doing it? Or a state? Or a school district?
Does it matter what the penalty is? If it is $5 is it still injustice? If like in Texas it means during a pandemic an unvaccinated child may not be able to attend school is that injustice?
You're talking about hypotheticals - which is why I asked earlier whether you were describing something that actually happened or not.
Waving your hands and saying "this is injustice" is really confusing when it's not clear what is unjust.
I'm not talking hypotheticals. It may be hypothetical to you but it's very real to my local community and fellow parishioners. The penalty absolutely matters; opportunity cost is a real thing (but you know that).
Regarding the details I don't buy into the performative nature of social media; I feel no compulsion to detail all that's going on within my sphere. If that's what you're looking for you won't get that satisfaction and I'm sorry (but this is not new). You will (and do) form your own opinions about that, which leads you to skepticism right now. As I've said before, I believe in objective truth. It exists whether you (proverbial) acknowledge it or not and certainly in spite of your (proverbial) doubt (and I'm sure we share the view of truth).
I have no desire to live publicly the way some here do. My ministry, my life, my focus is all local. This is a fun diversion but not a real substitute for that.
The curious part of this is the arrogance of the anti vax crowd.
Yes there is arrogance from the vax crowd as well, but that's expected as much as their is arrogance in the germ theory, relatively, evolution, moon landing was real crowd.
It's funny no one on the anti vax side wants to actually discuss science when they aren't in their echo chamber. Over there they post some garbage and laugh at all those moron people who believe in vaccines.
Yet over hear they try those arguments for about 6 seconds and retreat to muh rights arguments that were never a question before this pandemic.
If you find yourself without a scientific argument why the arrogance? We can agree or disagree on where we draw the line on personal choice, but that's hardly a thing to ridicule others about.
And it's also different this time. Before when we talked about personal choice with vaccines it was Jenny McCarthy and other misc morons who were mostly not a big group with some variations in certain enclaves.
Because it was about science and ignorance.Now it's republicans, because it's not about science vs not, if it was you'd want to argue the science outside your echo chamber. It's about red vs blue.
And there is a lot of red. So when we talk about vaccine hesitation as a political stance the implications are different.
Yes there is arrogance from the vax crowd as well, but that's expected as much as their is arrogance in the germ theory, relatively, evolution, moon landing was real crowd.
It's funny no one on the anti vax side wants to actually discuss science when they aren't in their echo chamber. Over there they post some garbage and laugh at all those moron people who believe in vaccines.
Yet over hear they try those arguments for about 6 seconds and retreat to muh rights arguments that were never a question before this pandemic.
If you find yourself without a scientific argument why the arrogance? We can agree or disagree on where we draw the line on personal choice, but that's hardly a thing to ridicule others about.
And it's also different this time. Before when we talked about personal choice with vaccines it was Jenny McCarthy and other misc morons who were mostly not a big group with some variations in certain enclaves.
Because it was about science and ignorance.Now it's republicans, because it's not about science vs not, if it was you'd want to argue the science outside your echo chamber. It's about red vs blue.
And there is a lot of red. So when we talk about vaccine hesitation as a political stance the implications are different.
Aggrad08 said:
The curious part of this is the arrogance of the anti vax crowd.
Yes there is arrogance from the vax crowd as well, but that's expected as much as their is arrogance in the germ theory, relatively, evolution, moon landing was real crowd.
It's funny no one on the anti vax side wants to actually discuss science when they aren't in their echo chamber. Over there they post some garbage and laugh at all those moron people who believe in vaccines.
Yet over hear they try those arguments for about 6 seconds and retreat to muh rights arguments that were never a question before this pandemic.
If you find yourself without a scientific argument why the arrogance? We can agree or disagree on where we draw the line on personal choice, but that's hardly a thing to ridicule others about.
And it's also different this time. Before when we talked about personal choice with vaccines it was Jenny McCarthy and other misc morons who were mostly not a big group with some variations in certain enclaves.
Because it was about science and ignorance.Now it's republicans, because it's not about science vs not, if it was you'd want to argue the science outside your echo chamber. It's about red vs blue.
And there is a lot of red. So when we talk about vaccine hesitation as a political stance the implications are different.
The decisions being made are about more than science; we're re-ordering society right now and these are far beyond the scope of a 'scientist' no matter how grounded his knowledge base is. Your arrogance in the face of that scope strays into hubris.
I think there's only the appearance of 're-ordering' because so many won't get the vaccine. No other vaccine has ever caused this kind of upheaval. And it's so unnecessary. If those on the right had embraced this (I find it incredibly ironic because it was developed under a R administration), we would have effectively eradicated Covid19. Not just the vaccine but had they shaped the public perception to wear a mask and work to minimize this, we would be in such a better place, esp the economy. It is the ultimate irony that this was minimized and marginalized to help 'save the economy' when it was those very actions that have us in the situation we are in today and will be dealing for years to come.
Nope, no chance. There would have been less deaths and less incentive to restrict freedoms though.Macarthur said:
If those on the right had embraced this (I find it incredibly ironic because it was developed under a R administration), we would have effectively eradicated COVID-19.
Dilettante said:Nope, no chance. There would have been less deaths and less incentive to restrict freedoms though.Macarthur said:
If those on the right had embraced this (I find it incredibly ironic because it was developed under a R administration), we would have effectively eradicated COVID-19.
Maybe it's talking past each other, but I think had an administration taken this seriously and pushed the narrative effectively, things would have been significantly diff. You can take issue with the word eradicate, but I still thing the point stands.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
15h ago
8.1k
21:31
9m ago
253
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
17h ago
1.3k
37:53
15h ago
993
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist