A Fifth of Coronavirus

[BruceVC]

24 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You don't need to "actively" punish people to get a point across. Sometimes rewarding those who embrace an idea can do the same. I.e. like some of the major financial institutions are doing in the US. If you want to work for us, you better prove you've gotten two vaccine shots or you are not a proper fit for this company. Then it's entirely up to the individual to prioritize what they want in life. A job for said institution or look for work elsewhere (and elsewhere is shrinking). Nobody is forcing them at gunpoint. It's a free country after all.

 

Edit: Unless someone somewhere wants to argue that the government should prevent that and take over control of private companies in the old fashioned Soviet style.

 

Edit2: Speaking of Soviet style... it does look like Florida has become a new Soviet Republic with the state government actively forbidding local authorities from trying to prevent the pandemic.

Yes and Gorthfuscious I am glad you have noticed how certain US companies are mandating vaccines to return to work. The CEO of JPMorgan is 100% correct in his new requirement . He said basically said " if people can go to restaurants they can come back to work "

And I also feel some people have  been taking advantage of the lack of oversight and normal weekly update meetings. Its just not realistic to have people sitting at home and getting paid for less productivity 

Anyway I am more than ready to return to work after my second vaccine, 15 September 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

You don't need to "actively" punish people to get a point across. Sometimes rewarding those who embrace an idea can do the same. I.e. like some of the major financial institutions are doing in the US. If you want to work for us, you better prove you've gotten two vaccine shots or you are not a proper fit for this company. Then it's entirely up to the individual to prioritize what they want in life. A job for said institution or look for work elsewhere (and elsewhere is shrinking). Nobody is forcing them at gunpoint. It's a free country after all.

Answer me this simple question. Would it be OK for companies to say:

"Prove to us you are 100% white or you are not fit to work in our company" 

"Prove to us you are not a Muslim or you are not fit to work in our company" 

"Prove to us you will not get pregnant or you are not fit to work in our company" 

I don't know about you but I don't think any of those should be legal and companies should discriminate on basis other than job qualification and personal traits. In fact at least in Poland it's illegal for companies to do so. Definitely no one should be banned from work for not having an unmandatory medical procedure of any kind. Employer is not the owner of the employees. 

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Answer me this simple question. Would it be OK for companies to say:

"Prove to us you are 100% white or you are not fit to work in our company" 

"Prove to us you are not a Muslim or you are not fit to work in our company" 

"Prove to us you will not get pregnant or you are not fit to work in our company" 

I don't know about you but I don't think any of those should be legal and companies should discriminate on basis other than job qualification and personal traits. In fact at least in Poland it's illegal for companies to do so. Definitely no one should be banned from work for not having an unmandatory medical procedure of any kind. Employer is not the owner of the employees. 

 I may be misunderstanding your concern but their is a huge difference between someone demanding I prove I am white which I would be offended about unless they can explain why its necessary ?

But taking the vaccine is about your health and you do your part to  stop the vaccine and reduce the spread.....I am envious.....you fortunate 

 

[Skarpen]

38 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But taking the vaccine is about your health

Yes, exactly. It is about health and personal medical information is protected by The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive and other rules concerning the protection of personal data. You know the EU laws and regulations you are so supportive of. And no entity can check, gather or require any medical information be it a store cashier or my employer. Therefore companies banning people on the basis of having a medical procedure or not will not fly in EU. 

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But taking the vaccine is about your health and you do your part to  stop the vaccine and reduce the spread.....I am envious.....you fortunate 

 

Not entirely. It's also about the damage you can cause your workplace if not vaccinated. Like a bus driver without a license applying for a bus driver job. He may be perfectly capable of driving that bus, but if **** hits the fan, the insurance wont pay and the bus company is screwed. Hence, the company has to protect itself. The laws about what you can't use as an argument are rather specific (but in general stuff that are of discriminatory nature against things where people have no choice i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation etc.). Not that any of those things in reality impacts the workplace other than ruffling the feathers of a few bigots. Pregnancy is a special case, because most countries are interested in keeping population numbers up. Not that I really understand how that is going to solve the overpopulation issue, but for mysterious reasons they do *). Alternatively, women would just stop giving birth altogether, so you could argue there is a special case there. The task of giving birth is a bit unevenly distributed amongst men and women at the moment.

 

*) Now I feel like watching Monty Pythons 'The Meaning of Life' again.

[Skarpen]

2 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Not entirely. It's also about the damage you can cause your workplace if not vaccinated.

OK, then why only covid? There are literally dozens of viruses, diseases, bacteria, funghi etc. you can bring to a workplace. Should your employer just be given your whole medical history? How about mental state? This can also bring damage to workplace if you have problems. Should your doctors just email everything to Katie from HR? How much of your personal life are you willing to give up to random people in the name of safety? 

[Raithe]

"Especially if you're male...."

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Raithe said:

"Especially if you're male...."

I always supported the girls right to wear shortest skirts, midriff tops and whatever they felt like wearing when I was in school 

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

OK, then why only covid? There are literally dozens of viruses, diseases, bacteria, funghi etc. you can bring to a workplace. Should your employer just be given your whole medical history? How about mental state? This can also bring damage to workplace if you have problems. Should your doctors just email everything to Katie from HR? How much of your personal life are you willing to give up to random people in the name of safety? 

What, like tuberculosis? 

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

What, like tuberculosis? 

image

hurl works as a teacher. am assuming at least previous to initial employment he were tested for drugs. quite a few occupations require regular drug testing. commonplace. no more a liberty denial than covid-testing, eh? pee in a cup v. nasal swab? 

in the US we current do tb tests at local state and fed facilities which has a high likelihood o' tb transmission. you wanna work in such a facility? prerequisite o' employment is you get a miniscule injection and two-to-three days later you need return so a medical practitioner can inspect the injection site to see if you are tb positive. furthermore, if there is a tb outbreak at the facility, chances are you need get regular tb tests. such testing will be accepted at va hospitals, jails, prisons, and is our understanding such tb testing may be done at schools if there is an outbreak.

before we began working for county level probation and previous to working at USAO, we had extensive psyche evaluations including a polygraph review. am thinking many law enforcement agencies make psyche evaluations standard, though am not certain how prevalent is polygraph testing. am recalling one o' the questions from a written psyche test asked us 'bout alice in wonderland. the rumour 'mongst applicants were that the question were meant to divine a likely embrace o' drug culture, or somesuch. anyways, when we were done with the verbal portion o' the psyche exam for our us attorney position, the psychiatrist asked us if we had any questions, so we asked 'bout the alice in wonderland question as part o' the written test. we mentioned how we answered honest (we did indeed enjoy alice) but we noted how there were a belief amongst those taking the test the question were linked to drug affinity.  the psychiatrist seemed a bit surprised but he said he believed the question were not solo relevant but that collectively it represented a kinda aesthetic preference as 'posed to any kinda drug use susceptibility. 

regardless, psyche profiles and testing is commonplace in the US and pretty much nobody complains 'cause there is at least a few jobs where being a psychopath is gonna be viewed as a negative.

nfl preseason is in full swing. the nflpa has worked extreme hard to avoid olympic standard drug testing, but drug testing is done. physical exams is also common and required as a prereq and for continued employment as an nfl player. suffer a concussion? if docs say your level o' concussion requires an mri, then you are getting an mri if you wanna stay employed in the nfl. sure hippa prevents your medical records from being shared w/o your approval, but as an nfl player if you don't wanna share med information with your team, you can go use your football skills elsewhere, perhaps becoming an all-time great ups driver or somesuch. the current group o' nfl players who is routine needing provide medical info to their teams but who is balking at nasal or oral swab testing to help limit the spread o' a deadly disease is hypocrites or profound stoopid. 

etc.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

OK, then why only covid? There are literally dozens of viruses, diseases, bacteria, funghi etc. you can bring to a workplace. Should your employer just be given your whole medical history? How about mental state? This can also bring damage to workplace if you have problems. Should your doctors just email everything to Katie from HR? How much of your personal life are you willing to give up to random people in the name of safety? 

It's entirely optional. Unlike say skin colour or gender, getting vaccinated is a choice. You can chose not to work there if you don't like the job requirements. Part of living in a free market economy. Unless you want the state to control those companies.

 

Edit: It's not like you're an Uighur (assumption on my part), so you're less at risk of getting sent to a government run company to do forced labour because you were born to the "wrong" parents.

[Skarpen]

7 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

What, like tuberculosis? 

What about it? 

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

hurl works as a teacher. am assuming at least previous to initial employment he were tested for drugs. quite a few occupations require regular drug testing. commonplace. no more a liberty denial than covid-testing, eh? pee in a cup v. nasal swab? 

in the US we current do tb tests at local state and fed facilities which has a high likelihood o' tb transmission. you wanna work in such a facility? prerequisite o' employment is you get a miniscule injection and two-to-three days later you need return so a medical practitioner can inspect the injection site to see if you are tb positive. furthermore, if there is a tb outbreak at the facility, chances are you need get regular tb tests. such testing will be accepted at va hospitals, jails, prisons, and is our understanding such tb testing may be done at schools if there is an outbreak.

before we began working for county level probation and previous to working at USAO, we had extensive psyche evaluations including a polygraph review. am thinking many law enforcement agencies make psyche evaluations standard, though am not certain how prevalent is polygraph testing. am recalling one o' the questions from a written psyche test asked us 'bout alice in wonderland. the rumour 'mongst applicants were that the question were meant to divine a likely embrace o' drug culture, or somesuch. anyways, when we were done with the verbal portion o' the psyche exam for our us attorney position, the psychiatrist asked us if we had any questions, so we asked 'bout the alice in wonderland question as part o' the written test. we mentioned how we answered honest (we did indeed enjoy alice) but we noted how there were a belief amongst those taking the test the question were linked to drug affinity.  the psychiatrist seemed a bit surprised but he said he believed the question were not solo relevant but that collectively it represented a kinda aesthetic preference as 'posed to any kinda drug use susceptibility. 

regardless, psyche profiles and testing is commonplace in the US and pretty much nobody complains 'cause there is at least a few jobs where being a psychopath is gonna be viewed as a negative.

nfl preseason is in full swing. the nflpa has worked extreme hard to avoid olympic standard drug testing, but drug testing is done. physical exams is also common and required as a prereq and for continued employment as an nfl player. suffer a concussion? if docs say your level o' concussion requires an mri, then you are getting an mri if you wanna stay employed in the nfl. sure hippa prevents your medical records from being shared w/o your approval, but as an nfl player if you don't wanna share med information with your team, you can go use your football skills elsewhere, perhaps becoming an all-time great ups driver or somesuch. the current group o' nfl players who is routine needing provide medical info to their teams but who is balking at nasal or oral swab testing to help limit the spread o' a deadly disease is hypocrites or profound stoopid. 

etc.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Wow. So much for the land of the free, I guess. Are those at least codified somewhere or employers just do it willy nily? In Poland employers cannot even make breathalyser test on employee. They have to call the police if they suspect a person is intoxicated, to check. 

There are some professions that require health certifications but the checking is made by health care providers, not the companies themselves and no medical records are ever held by some company. All they get is a plain "no contraindications for working" so if you have a condition that is not affecting the occupation employer will never know and if you do employer will never know what exactly that would be. 

As stated above persons medical records are considered sensitive private information in Europe. 

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

It's entirely optional. Unlike say skin colour or gender, getting vaccinated is a choice. You can chose not to work there if you don't like the job requirements. Part of living in a free market economy. Unless you want the state to control those companies. 

Aren't you a supporter of minimum wage and fair working conditions? You don't seem to mind state control of companies in that area. 

It's kinda funny you guys consider for example Trump as despicable human being but are willing to give him your sensitive personal health information if he happens to be your boss. Wierd. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Aren't you a supporter of minimum wage and fair working conditions? You don't seem to mind state control of companies in that area.

I don't see a conflict there. You're the one who seems to flip flop a bit about whether it's good or bad to have a free market economy, support entrepreneurs etc. but now that is suddenly bad and now you want the state to overrule private companies decisions. One moment you don't really like the EU and the next moment their data protection laws are suddenly a good thing. Not much point in a debate if you keep changing your mind. If I don't a work place, I'm happy to leave and have done so in the past.

 

Edit: Explained in simple English:

Yes, I do favour things like minimum wages to prevent workforce exploitation, I do favour work safety regulations to prevent workers from become a literally expendable asset, I do favour the enforcement of anti discrimination measures etc.

No, I don't believe in a "top down" economy,  where everything is decided by the those party members who are either the most ruthless or the most servile boot lickers. I do not believe people should be tied to hospital beds under guard while being forcefully injected with AZ vaccine.

I do believe companies have the right to require people to get vaccinated as part of their employment conditions.

It's a balancing act and we can disagree about where the sweet spot is between the extremes.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

 

 

Edit: It's not like you're an Uighur (assumption on my part), so you're less at risk of getting sent to a government run company to do forced labour because you were born to the "wrong" parents.

Gorthfuscious why you making assumptions? Skarpen may be Uighur, he could a refugee ?

@Skarpen Are you a Uighur? Its okay if you are ....we all respect all opinions and feedback 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I don't see a conflict there. You're the one who seems to flip flop a bit about whether it's good or bad to have a free market economy, support entrepreneurs etc. but now that is suddenly bad and now you want the state to overrule private companies decisions. One moment you don't really like the EU and the next moment their data protection laws are suddenly a good thing. Not much point in a debate if you keep changing your mind. If I don't a work place, I'm happy to leave and have done so in the past.

 

Edit: Explained in simple English:

Yes, I do favour things like minimum wages to prevent workforce exploitation, I do favour work safety regulations to prevent workers from become a literally expendable asset, I do favour the enforcement of anti discrimination measures etc.

No, I don't believe in a "top down" economy,  where everything is decided by the those party members who are either the most ruthless or the most servile boot lickers. I do not believe people should be tied to hospital beds under guard while being forcefully injected with AZ vaccine.

I do believe companies have the right to require people to get vaccinated as part of their employment conditions.

It's a balancing act and we can disagree about where the sweet spot is between the extremes.

So you support government telling companies what to do in areas that actually affects the business but refuse government involvement when businesses stick their nose in areas they have no business interfering like employees private life and health? That's quite a weird position. Why would anyone support some schmuck right to dictate persons life just because he can afford to set a grocery store and hire someone is beyond me. 

And I don't flip flop on EU. EU is such a vast organization that it's impossible for all it's decisions to be bad or all good. So I rather criticize the bad and praise the good. I know nowadays it's shun upon such stance and people rather deal in absolutes "this is all good", "this is all bad" but I think my approach is more reasonable. It's not like there wouldn't be some state regulations protecting personal freedom if the EU wouldn't have such laws. So it doesn't matter to me if it's from EU or local state. 

Sure the free market and support entrepreneurs is ok. But I don't see how my personal health information is any part of business of the steel industry company I work for. Business can make business decisions all they want but they have no right to make decisions about my personal life, duh. 

I lived under government tyranny and I'm not to eager to surrender to a corporate tyranny. 

I agree it's a balancing act but I'm more in favor of balancing it around personal freedom rather than which master have more power government or corporate. I'd rather have no masters. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Skarpen]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Gorthfuscious why you making assumptions? Skarpen may be Uighur, he could a refugee ?

@Skarpen Are you a Uighur? Its okay if you are ....we all respect all opinions and feedback 

No, I'm not Uighur. I'm mostly Slavic with some Lithuanian, Jewish and Kashub ancestry. But it's nice you didn't automatically made assumptions and asked

[Gromnir]

am knowing skarpen has been wrong 'bout european free speech law issues in the past, so am not just gonna take his word for stuff. 

regardless, as one might expect in the land o' the free, the stuff which is codified is gonna be limited to what cannot be demanded by government or from employees. Constitution says can't discriminate based on race, religion, national origin and alienage. fed law prohibits discrimination based on gender save in some extreme limited situations. states has additional laws, but 'cause is indeed land of free, we allow employers and employees to decide most other stuff.

for example, an employer may decide to not hire a person 'cause the prospect is too stoopid to do the job or is too rude to deal with customers. reasonable. is not considered illegal or discriminatory to have a prospective employee show proof of education or pass a skills test anymore than is unreasonable to have an interview with the prospect. your stoopidity or rudeness is not subject to privacy even if is more debilitating than a whole host o' medical conditions.

if a shipping/freight company is hiring a truck driver, chances are they require proof o' a clean driving record, a current class whatever driver's license and likely the prospect is asked to pass a drug test.  not require such stuff and the new driver kills somebody in an accident while on drugs while driving one o' your trucks and chances are the shipping company gets sued and loses a whole lotta money. again, require basic proof o' safe driving record and being drug free is a reasonable precaution for the employer o' a truck driver.

so how is a covid test or requiring proof o' vaccine any different? what would be the basis for precluding an employer for asking for such info?  sure, medical info is deemed private and the reason medical privacy exists is 'cause society benefits from an individual being truthful with their doctor when seeking medical help. we also protect communications with spouses (though your spouse may waive) and clergy. limited exceptions. nevertheless, would be extreme stoopid if a medical facility treating immuno compromised patients were precluded from asking for employees to prove they ain't carrying an infectious disease such as tuberculosis or covid-19 before exposing patients to the prospective employee. again, could hospitals and doctors could be sued if they didn't take such obvious and reasonable precautions to protect patient safety.

am not sure why medical records is important to skarpen_one. if a person need show proof o' being drug free, what would make you assume a full medical record were being communicated? we mentioned hippa, which marjorie taylor greene so frequent misrepresents. your medical records may not be communicated w/o your authorization, but would be extreme strange if you were precluded from requesting your own medical records and offering them to an employer. need proof o' being drug free, then chances are you authorize communication o' the drug test results. employer requires proof of vaccination, then authorization will be for proof o' vaccination. is not rocket science and is reasonable.

obviously for a football player whose livelihood is dependent on physical health, more info is gonna be relevant to their team and will be perfect reasonable for the team to request.  spend millions o' dollars on a rookie contract only to discover the player has a serious medical condition they did not disclose? that don't seem fair. hardly a caveat emptor situation. can't force a player to divulge medical info, but why would you prevent a team from requesting such info or precluding the player from making such info available? if the player won't take a physical or offer medical records, they might go undrafted, or at least their draft status will suffer. regardless, is hard to imagine a nfl team offering a kid millions o' dollars to play football if there is no way to evaluate the health o' the player especial if there is reasons for concern. reasonable.

psych evaluations for people who is gonna be armed with a gun or who is gonna be given authority to investigate and prosecute american citizens? we should hope so. have actually known people who were in law enforcement and had risen in the department hierarchy, but 'cause they failed a portion o' their psych evaluation they could not carry a firearm. take reasonable precautions to protect citizens from foreseeable harm is hardly shock the conscience level o' an invasion o' privacy. 

much o' these observations is based on common sense and/or the reasonable person standard which is typical applied in tort situations.  

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

9 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

if a shipping/freight company is hiring a truck driver, chances are they require proof o' a clean driving record, a current class whatever driver's license and likely the prospect is asked to pass a drug test.  not require such stuff and the new driver kills somebody in an accident while on drugs while driving one o' your trucks and chances are the shipping company gets sued and loses a whole lotta money. again, require basic proof o' safe driving record and being drug free is a reasonable precaution for the employer o' a truck driver.

Drivers license is not a personal information. It's part of the job competency like education degree skills etc. This is something employer can verify as well as personal traits which I already mentioned. 

The truck company is only liable if they knowingly let intoxicated driver to drive. Otherwise only the driver is liable which is reasonable. But Europeans are far less frivolous with lawsuits then US. So maybe they just fighting with the problems they created. 

Here if an employer suspects a hired driver to be under the influence of some substance he can only call the police to check it as he have no right to check it himself. Which is reasonable as he is in no way competent to perform such a test. 

As stated before if a job requires any medical verification it is done by medical professionals as they are competent to perform such. And the employer only gets information there are no contraindications for the employee to work. 

Then again, it's all codified. What conditions should be taken into account for what type of work. For example truck driver will have some different set of medical examinations than welder. Still nothing specific is going to the employer as again, and I cannot stress this enough, employer have no business dwindling in employees personal sensitive information. 

This is a very fundamental principle for Europeans and East Europeans especially since we have been under Soviet occupation for decades where our life was substantially constantly invigilated and state owned. And I understand that Americans might not understand how it's important to us. 

[Elerond]

Required doping test for professional athletes show how futile it is to appeal to privacy of medical records when you want to do sports for living. As we demand such loss of privacy in medical matters from one group of people in order them to make their living we can determine that our laws will allow employers to do so also in any other field as we have our equal treatment clauses in our laws.

[Skarpen]

33 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Required doping test for professional athletes show how futile it is to appeal to privacy of medical records when you want to do sports for living.

Doping is not medical treatment. It's a way to cheat. I don't really see any parallel here. 

But still anti doping regulations are codified both by internal country laws and internationally. It's not like some sport organization does it on it's own. 

As I stated before to BruceVC, you want to make this vaccines mandatory, please do. Legislation exists it's not like anyone would need to reinvent a wheel to do so. Until then no entity state or private should have any right to force anyone to take unmandatory medical treatment. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Elerond]

2 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Doping is not medical treatment. It's a way to cheat. I don't really see any parallel here. 

Proving that you don't use doping by giving periodically compulsory pee- and blood tests and reporting your location for WADA so that they can come test you any time they want is medical treatment that parallels to employer demanding proof that you have got covid vaccine 

[Skarpen]

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

Proving that you don't use doping by giving periodically compulsory pee- and blood tests and reporting your location for WADA so that they can come test you any time they want is medical treatment that parallels to employer demanding proof that you have got covid vaccine 

No it's not. Not even close. I edited my previous post, please check the addition. 

[Elerond]

16 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

No it's not. Not even close. I edited my previous post, please check the addition. 

"But still anti doping regulations are codified both by internal country laws and internationally. It's not like some sport organization does it on it's own."

Individual sports organizations determine themselves what substances are prohibited in their sports. 

Individuals that for medical reasons need to use those substances need to prove that to WADA and their local doping organizations.

[Skarpen]

Sure, but they are allowed to do that because the antidoping regulations allows them to do it. They didn't self appointed the right to do so on themselves. And still antidoping check is withing the range of their let's call it business which is sport. No other entity have the right to do those to their employees. Local store cannot check the cashiers for using doping or penalize them for doing it. 

It's light-years apart from some company deciding on it's own they will interfere with someone's personal life. 

Basically you are arguing that if a soldier can shoot another soldier on a battlefield then you can shoot your neighbor. 

It's not the same thing. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Guard Dog]

Canada has re-opened the border with the US. Tourists are once again welcome. For about 30 days before the whole country freezes solid LOL.

 

Edit: admit it. You’re humming that song right now!

Edited August 9, 2021 by Guard Dog