Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

remoteclan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#81

Post by GlennS »

mc32 wrote: post #27

The labor minister of Germany recently said that companies cannot force employees to disclose their immunization status. There is a conflict between health on the one side and civil liberties/privacy on the other. We need to achieve a reasonable balance. Draconian ‘thou shalt’ demands are not the solutions but more and more companies are starting to require evidence of vaccination whether you’re going to the office o…

I would argue that rather than trying to find a balance, we just need to make sure all these measures are temporary.

In normal times an unwavering commitment to freedom in its citizens is a great strength for a country. In normal times, the people who stand up for freedom provide herd immunity against authoritarians.

Let's not adjust the default settings because of a couple of years of abnormal, just because some of those folks wouldn't adjust their ideas to a new situation.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#82

Post by [deleted] »

swayvil wrote: post #19
HenryKissinger wrote: post #2

Won't this create an incentive not to get the vaccine in order to continue working from home? Or to lie about your vaccination status? Companies should either institute broad vaccine mandates, or allow both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees to work from home, or bring everyone back to the office. Any policy tying your wfh status to vaccines will be abused. If anything, employees who get the vaccine should be the…

My local Amish people work, shop and live together every day. No vax. And their health is unchanged. I think that the threat posed by covid, and the necessity of the vax, has been exaggerated.

[deleted]

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#83

Post by bluGill »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #2

Won't this create an incentive not to get the vaccine in order to continue working from home? Or to lie about your vaccination status? Companies should either institute broad vaccine mandates, or allow both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees to work from home, or bring everyone back to the office. Any policy tying your wfh status to vaccines will be abused. If anything, employees who get the vaccine should be the…

Working from home means you lose all office politics by default. It is possible for companies to mitigate this, but most do not. Thus working from home is bad for your future promotions.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#84

Post by sennight »

bluGill wrote: post #80
sennight wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no end to such a line of logic though, except that they can demand anything they want - so long as it can be argued to decrease productivity. You really want that? That maternity leave... I wonder how much work gets done.

> There is no end to such a line of logic though, except that they can demand anything they want - so long as it can be argued to decrease productivity We carefully place limits for things like race. However those are narrow things. > That maternity leave... I wonder how much work gets done. That is one reason companies don't mandate everything (although it is mandated): companies with good maternity leave policies a…

> We carefully place limits for things like race.

Oof, that isn't even close to what the civil rights act was designed to address. Conflating this with that would not go the way you'd likely want.

> This is more valuable than the time lost.

Something so true that it has to be compelled by law!

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#85

Post by chadash »

mc32 wrote: post #76
chadash wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope this gets settled by the labor board or the Supreme Court rather than companies takin that mantle to impose a mandate themselves. Generally, the default is that private companies can discriminate however they please. In certain cases we've decided that that's not good for a society (race, religion, ethnicity), so we restrict their ability to do that. But why shouldn't private companies be allowed to make the…

That could possibly be permissible for new employees signing a new agreement. However, “legacy” employees never signed any document of employment stating they were required to disclose vaccination status the way you are told you will have provide proof of identity and so on prior to onboardung.

It seems like it is permissible. The question is whether it is right. In the US at least, employment is generally at-will, meaning they can fire you for basically any reason as long as it isn't discrimination of a protected class. If my employer decided tomorrow to fire anyone who doesn't vote Republican, they can do that. I think it would be unreasonable, but it would be permissable, regardless of whether i had to disclose this going in. But this isn't quite that extreme. Presumably, this is them making a decision based on what they believe is in the best interests for the safety of their overall workforce. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to make decisions that they believe keep employees safe?

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#86

Post by TMWNN »

minikites wrote: post #20
sennight wrote: post #14

The fact that anyone would think it is the responsibility of employers to force others to do anything... just amazing. You know that there is a system already in place to do that, right? It is even designed to guard against abuses that businesses aren't equipped for: this is a function of government. If you want to force your vision of the world on others - lobby the government, that is what it is there for.

I would love it if the government required vaccination but the last time the government did something controversial, a bunch of looters and thugs stormed the US Capitol and killed several police officers.

>I would love it if the government required vaccination but the last time the government did something controversial, a bunch of looters and thugs stormed the US Capitol and killed several police officers.

As sennight said, that is a lie. The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.

(And before you mention him, Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>). And yes, the autopsy also specifically checked—and did not find evidence—for a connection between the stroke and pepper spray.)

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#87

Post by HenryKissinger »

otherme123 wrote: post #16
HenryKissinger wrote: post #2

Won't this create an incentive not to get the vaccine in order to continue working from home? Or to lie about your vaccination status? Companies should either institute broad vaccine mandates, or allow both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees to work from home, or bring everyone back to the office. Any policy tying your wfh status to vaccines will be abused. If anything, employees who get the vaccine should be the…

Two clicks ahead they explain that "Hamers is rolling out a permanent hybrid working model for the firm globally, allowing at least two thirds of its employees to mix work from home and the office. Traders are part of the “25% to one third" of the bank’s staff for whom it is “really difficult" to work from home". Those people are banned for entering the bank buildings if they don't have a vaxx proof, so it's either g…

Can't traders log in remotely to their Bloomberg terminal?

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#88

Post by [deleted] »

swayvil wrote: post #39
nradov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amish people have died from COVID-19. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/28/9909860...

I speak from firsthand observation and discussion. You speak from prepared news products delivered remotely by strangers. Grasp the epistemological difference here.

[deleted]

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#89

Post by andybak »

literallyaduck wrote: post #52
andybak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that mean?

They can use this as a way to get the people who don't vaccinate to self identify by luring them into "you don't have to come back to the office, you can work from home". Once people have been identified they will have the list of people to let go. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-... Read this and substitute Jew for Antivaxer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_p...…

The nazi comparison is hyperbole of the worst kind and makes it hard to engage with this line of argument. It also tends to make Jewish people very angry and I can see why.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#90

Post by mc32 »

chadash wrote: post #85
mc32 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could possibly be permissible for new employees signing a new agreement. However, “legacy” employees never signed any document of employment stating they were required to disclose vaccination status the way you are told you will have provide proof of identity and so on prior to onboardung.

It seems like it is permissible. The question is whether it is right . In the US at least, employment is generally at-will, meaning they can fire you for basically any reason as long as it isn't discrimination of a protected class. If my employer decided tomorrow to fire anyone who doesn't vote Republican, they can do that. I think it would be unreasonable, but it would be permissable , regardless of whether i had to…

A company could tell everyone they hired for finance they now are being transferred to research and development and vice versa. Nothing against the law. But people in finance were not hired to do R&D and people in R&D were not hired to do financials. The company could then of course fire the above for not performing --but HR usually never takes this approach to layoffs. They may eliminate departments or redefine things and then you re-apply and so on with new roles and duties but it's all formal. Companies could require employees to re-apply, but you'd see quite some pushback especially from people who have been there a while and may interpret the move as a threat to their job security.
Post reply on HN