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

Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 262 posts

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#101

Post by refurb »

physicsguy wrote: post #32
nsxwolf wrote: post #6

This is just life, forever. Totally unprecedented. You will get a vaccination every 6 months for the rest of your life or be totally excluded from all civil rights. There will be no end. If the virus mutates to become harmless, the mandates will be given all the credit, and we will double down on this system. It's not temporary.

> You will get a vaccination every 6 months for the rest of your life or be totally excluded from all civil rights. This is like the free speech debate. You have the right to say whatever you like. Other people don't have to put up with it by listening to you though. Just as if you don't get a vaccine, other people won't want to work with you.

Exactly! Google loves free speech, but hey if you say the wrong thing you’re fired, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support free speech!

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#102

Post by k8si »

nsxwolf wrote: post #24
acdha wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just life, forever. Totally unprecedented. You will get a vaccination every 6 months for the rest of your life or be totally excluded from all civil rights. “all civil rights” meaning you have full civil rights but can't force a private company to give you a job when you refuse to follow safety rules? Especially in a country where employers pay for healthcare it doesn't seem unreasonable to require a safe,…

If we eventually define "civil rights" to mean "you have the right to stay inside your home and order everything on Amazon", we have a serious problem. That's where this is going. It goes way beyond the decisions of an individual company. Regarding the status quo: Yes, mandates exist. The school example is a piece of paper you turn into the school office during enrollment and no one ever thinks about it again. It's n…

It seems like the vax every 6 months is a worst-ish case scenario (worst case being, some mutation is like 100% vax resistant, no one can figure it out, and a lot more people die). Well, one is also supposed to get a dental cleaning every 6 months. The nice thing about the vax is, jab takes 2 seconds and no one bugs you about flossing. I don't see why this would be such a chore.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#104

Post by Workaccount2 »

cletus wrote: post #46

What I find sad about this is how many who seem to be against it were just recently so in favour of private business autonomy [1]. No one's rights are being violated here. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you can. But those choices come with consequences, like just about every other choice we make. It's worth noting that fully remote people won't fall under this policy (from my reading of it anyway) so this isn't…

These are the same people who fought net neutrality on the grounds of "protecting private entities (ISPs) from government overreach" and then a few years later were petitioning their congressmen to write laws regulating speech on twitter.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#105

Post by chrisseaton »

Karsteski wrote: post #94
xnyan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We were promised this wouldn't happen by our governments last year right? We were promised that a company can't require a vaccine as a condition of employment? Seeing as some companies have required vaccines for as long as there have been vaccines, I think I must be misunderstanding you. >Why are private companies stuck policing these absurd policies? Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees l…

Should companies also require their employees not be overweight because they are less likely to miss work due to illness?

I don't think weight is a protected category, so yes this is fine. For example insurers will discriminate based on weight. The military discriminates based on weight. Hooters discriminates based on weight. Etc.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#106

Post by realreality »

vlovich123 wrote: post #55
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees less likely to miss work due to illness. Then if I don't want to get a vaccine, I'll sign an agreement that if I get sick and miss work, I don't get paid, and that's the end of it.

That’s not how infectious diseases work. You can be getting other people sick. Vaccines aren’t 100% effective so prolonged exposure in indoor spaces increases chances. Some people also are immuno compromised and can’t be vaccinated so you’d be putting them at risk too. Are you going to start paying for their sick time too and signing away that you’re personally liable for deaths?

Are immunocompromised people exempt from the mandate? If they're working next to anybody, vaccinated or not, they're at risk of getting sick.

New rule: every googler who works near immunocompromised coworkers has to wear a mask.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#107

Post by Ekaros »

Karsteski wrote: post #94
xnyan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We were promised this wouldn't happen by our governments last year right? We were promised that a company can't require a vaccine as a condition of employment? Seeing as some companies have required vaccines for as long as there have been vaccines, I think I must be misunderstanding you. >Why are private companies stuck policing these absurd policies? Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees l…

Should companies also require their employees not be overweight because they are less likely to miss work due to illness?

Or to be sterilised so they can't get pregnant or make their partner pregnant. Having kids leads to missing work after all.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#108

Post by ben_w »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #82
eldaisfish wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weight-related diseases are generally not communicable, and are certainly not airborne. My risk of vehicular injury is not increased by being around you, even if you are a bad driver.

Actually, iirc there are studies showing people are more likely to be obese if the people around them are obese. So obesity seems to be communicable in some sense. As for driving you are of course wrong, other bad drivers can affect your health.

I’d expect proximity to correlate regardless of the cause — environmental, memes, lifestyle, pathogens, etc.

Are there any studies on causation?

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#109

Post by stareblinkstare »

chernevik wrote: post #85
criddell wrote: post #38

At some point I wonder if health insurers will start denying claims related to the treatment of COVID infections if the person is eligible for the vaccine but has refused to get one? On TV today I saw that Kroger employees don't get sick day pay if they are off because of COVID unless they have been vaccinated (and I would assume there's a medical exemption).

By that logic insurers could deny claims related to obesity, or risky sexual behavior. Would you approve of that?

Some of us gladly would.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#110

Post by refurb »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #29
nsxwolf wrote: post #6

This is just life, forever. Totally unprecedented. You will get a vaccination every 6 months for the rest of your life or be totally excluded from all civil rights. There will be no end. If the virus mutates to become harmless, the mandates will be given all the credit, and we will double down on this system. It's not temporary.

You are free to not work at Google, and you are free to not take part in society if you dont wish to participate in the societal contract.

“Social contract” is one of those squishy cop outs that just means “do what we say even if you don’t want to because it’s for a greater good”.

It’s not a useful tool for an argument because anything can fall under that.

“Stop taking drugs because you’re harming society. You’re still free to take them though, you’ll just be put in jail. But it’s your choice.”

Post reply on HN