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

161–170 of 262 posts

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

#161

Post by asoneth »

I'm definitely pro-vaccine, but I'm also concerned about the long-term impact of alienating whole swaths of the country with policies like these. Perhaps there are less onerous policies that would be similarly effective?

To address the risk of transmission for in-person employees, would a combination of masking and testing be similarly effective at minimizing office outbreaks?

As for the increase in a company's health insurance costs it seems like we could simply let health insurance companies consider vaccination status when calculating an individual's health insurance premiums (like they currently do with smokers). It seems like the reasonable free-market approach to ask people to pay for any increase in risk they willingly choose to take on.

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

#162

Post by epistasis »

refurb wrote: post #150
epistasis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about employment where the employer makes much much of off your labor than you will ever receive, and you are powerless to demand your fair share. Yet instead, a safe workplace is the coercive part? If you don't want to be coerced, you had better not be an employee with wages. Go out there and start your own business.

It’s hilarious to see HN flip from “I dream of a future where no one has to work and fall under the yoke of greedy employers” to “just get injected with this drug and be thankful you have a job; don’t get it and you deserve to starve”.

The vaccines are the magic future where a small bit of technology prevents disease and death.

> don’t get it and you deserve to starve

It's not by chance that you have to make up ridiculous words and put them in my mouth to attempt to criticize the comment, either in this part where I quoted you, or in the weird assertion about no one having to work.

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

#163

Post by ryandrake »

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?

It's also not how other workplace safety rules work. You can't just sign a waiver allowing you to go without a hard hat on a construction job. Vaccination during a raging deadly pandemic seems to fall squarely in the "workplace safety" category, like banning smoking, which few people seem to have a problem with. Employers have a responsibility to take steps to ensure their place of work is not hazardous.

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

#164

Post by kevinventullo »

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…

A one-time paper submission with medical and religious exemptions is precisely what Google is doing.

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

#165

Post by asoneth »

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?

I would not be in favor of denying health insurance claims but I would be less averse to allowing health insurance companies to factor in certain chronically risky behaviors when calculating health insurance premiums.

For example, a smoker who is not actively engaged in a smoking cessation program or someone who is morbidly obese by choice and not actively engaged in a medical weight loss program should be paying higher health-insurance premiums to offset their increased costs. (The former is not uncommon and while the latter may be controversial it is not necessarily a niche perspective. [1])

So yes, I think the same logic should apply to individuals who choose not to receive vaccines.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19548556/

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

#166

Post by srean »

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?

Not denial, but businesses classified as for profit are certainly within moral rights to claim risk appropriate premium.

Insurance companies have to toe the thin line between a business and a social good. With prediction models to become more and more accurate I would be happier if we have non-profit insurance that amortizes/socializes the draw of the lottery. For voluntary choices of risky behavior, drug addiction, unsafe sex, etc etc., I think insurance companies are within their rights to charge more.

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

#167

Post by asoneth »

nsxwolf wrote: post #15
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…

With the exception of healthcare I don't think a lot of companies have mandated vaccines. My wife works in healthcare and there was a tuberculosis shot mandate for specific jobs at her hospital. There was a flu shot mandate of sorts, but it was tied to a small bonus. You can't point to a small sector that has mandates and say it wouldn't be a significant change if suddenly 100% of all workers everywhere were subjecte…

As a counterpoint, when I worked for a private university (unrelated to healthcare) I was required to have up-to-date vaccinations. I was also not allowed to smoke on campus.

These kinds of workplace safety rules may be more common than you think.

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

#168

Post by cletus »

ekianjo wrote: post #134
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…

> It's also worth noting that a whole bunch of vaccines are required to attend public school already [2]. Vaccines required at school while children don't get any kind of side effects of COVID19 anyway (and get more risks from the vaccine than anything else). This is so far from any kind of Science.

> Vaccines required at school while children don't get any kind of side effects of COVID19

Other than dying [1] you mean?

Dying aside, children can still spread the virus. I’m sure someone will make the straw man argument of “the vaccine doesn’t 100% prevent transmission”, which is true but no one claimed it did. It does however improve the situation.

[1]: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-years/xa4b...

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

#169

Post by titzer »

ekianjo wrote: post #149
titzer wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "won't stop infection" or "stop the pandemic" - 1st this is not black and white Seriously. Mitigating the damage from failure to contain and eradicate the virus when we had the chance (in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential, but guess what, the same people f'd that up) involves filter after filter after filter. Each filter reduces spread and severity by some amount. Masks reduce (but don…

> in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential We have enough data by now, worldwide, to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective. There is virtually no correlation with viral spread and lockdown status.

> to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective.

You're saying that ineffective, half-hearted lockdowns elsewhere were ineffective? Hold the phone.

Victoria, Australia. South Korea. Wuhan. New Zealand. Singapore.

These lockdowns eradicated the virus locally--for several months at a time; but they are precarious, leaky ships due to the virus spreading everywhere else. An effective worldwide lockdown was exponentially more difficult. But very large countries with the ability to isolate themselves from international travel did do effective lockdowns, so I will not be accepting your narrative above.

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

#170

Post by titzer »

ekianjo wrote: post #146
chrisseaton wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> violate their rights Can you talk us through exactly which rights you think are being violated?

> Can you talk us through exactly which rights you think are being violated? I recall the left has been very vocal about "my body my right" when it came to some different kind of issue. Funny that the standards don't hold very much.

> the left has been very vocal about "my body my right"

Regarding abortion. Are pregnancies contagious now, creating a serious public health crisis?

Post reply on HN