Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[GT Pony]

They're requiring one or the other, without formalizing how the other will be handled. Or, as far as I know, how the testing needs to be done and by whom.

I'm sure there will be processes in place for at work testing. It's not rocket science. Sport teams did it for over a year.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

Your second argument is my being jabbed keeps you safe. I say BS if you are jabbed and it works you are safe even if I am not.

Degree of safety bla bla bla, if you feel threatened by your fellow employees, wear a mask.

 

[Hobohunter]

If you google it, there is divide of thought on this. But even if it was a "right" there are obviously requirements set forth by the employer and others for them to give you a job. Proof of being vaccinated or testing as required is going to be one of those stipulations if this pandemic continues as is. People you can either accept that or not have the job. So that "right" to work does not over power the requirements needed or defined to work the job.

That also depends on whether your employer has the ability to change the requirements needed for your job after you've accepted your job offer. My position is a union one, my employer can't unilaterally change the requirements to do my job.

 

[GT Pony]

Some here need to read and understand the constitution.
The mandate that came down is all companies over 100 people need to have all employees jabbed. There was no or be tested.

Yes the testing option was stipulated. It should really be daily testing instead of weekly to be effective. You got links that prove otherwise? Geeez, where do you get your so called information?

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/13/biden-mandates-vaccines-reactions-511680

" federal workplace safety officials will soon issue a rule that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to either ensure their workers are vaccinated or require unvaccinated employees to produce a weekly negative test result before coming to work. "

 

[Burkey]

No, I'm saying you have the right to have a job in the US. Not necessarily a particular job.

You have the right to apply for a job. The employer isn’t required to give you one though and nor is the government compelled to give you one.

 

[Hobohunter]

I'm sure there will be processes in place for at work testing. It's not rocket science. Sport teams did it for over a year.

I'm sure there will be as well, but until they're set in stone, or clarified by the government they are a grey area. I'll give you a parallel scenario. In the last few years my state made a law requiring safety training before anyone can buy a semi-auto rifle. Until they clarified what that actually meant it would have meant nobody could buy a semi-auto rifle. Similarly, if there's no clarity on what those testing requirements mean, it turns into a vaccine requirement, if a company doesn't know how to comply with testing, it'll be an option on paper only.

 

[GT Pony]

Some here need to read and understand the constitution.

Maybe you should try to understand what it really means instead of hoping it means what you want it to mean. From how you come across the contitution means there should be no man-made rules, regulatioins or laws in society because they just might "infringe" on someone wanting to do whatever they want to do.

 

[Hobohunter]

You have the right to apply for a job. The employer isn’t required to give you one though and nor is the government compelled to give you one.

Obviously, but you do have the right to have a job.

 

[GT Pony]

Your second argument is my being jabbed keeps you safe. I say BS if you are jabbed and it works you are safe even if I am not.

That's for science and experts to decide ... not you wanting to do what you want to do.

 

[GT Pony]

That also depends on whether your employer has the ability to change the requirements needed for your job after you've accepted your job offer. My position is a union one, my employer can't unilaterally change the requirements to do my job.

I think it depends on what the employer wants to change as a requirement for employment, and if the Federal Gov't has a factor involved.

 

[GT Pony]

I'm sure there will be as well, but until they're set in stone, or clarified by the government they are a grey area. I'll give you a parallel scenario. In the last few years my state made a law requiring safety training before anyone can buy a semi-auto rifle. Until they clarified what that actually meant it would have meant nobody could buy a semi-auto rifle. Similarly, if there's no clarity on what those testing requirements mean, it turns into a vaccine requirement, if a company doesn't know how to comply with testing, it'll be an option on paper only.

Of couse testing protocol with required details will be defined if that's an official option. Why wouldn't they lay it all out in detail?

 

[GT Pony]

Obviously, but you do have the right to have a job.

Only if you can meet the requirements of the job.

 

[Burkey]

Obviously, but you do have the right to have a job.

You have the right to APPLY for a job.
You don’t have a right to HAVE a job.

I think we may be defining rights differently.
I‘m using the word as below:

right. 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

You are most certainly not ENTITLED to a job.

 

[Hobohunter]

Of couse testing protocol with required details will be defined if that's an official option. Why wouldn't they lay it all out in detail?

I'm just being cynical here, but if the goal is vaccinations, any way to push more of them is on the table, like being vague on testing requirements.
I don't think this mandate via OSHA will stand up if and when it gets challenged, I think that's part of the strategy behind it. It will take time to be challenged, and in the meantime some people who might otherwise not choose to get vaccinated will do it because they don't want to risk their jobs.

 

[Hobohunter]

Only if you can meet the requirements of the job.

I believe that was covered by the "obviously" at the beginning of the sentence, since that's what was written in the post I was responding to.

Sponsored