UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by otherme123 » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #61

nomdep wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone with AIDS is not their responsibility to warn people before sex or to use a condom… wait IT IS! How about driving drunk? Fuck everyone else am I right? So stop whining and putting everyone at risk only because something is mildly inconvenient to you. Grow up already

Does it happen.... all the time? yes yes it does. You need to grow up and accept that other people aren't out there to protect you like Mommy and Daddy. The world does not exist to hold your hand. Never had been. Your life, your responsibility, your choices. That is the essence of freedom and it's beautiful. It's too bad you would sacrifice freedom for safety.

Even the most extreme views of libertarianism have the principle of "do not harm others" as the limit for one's freedoms. In fact, other political philosophies have a softer view on this principle, like utilitarianism (maximize wellness even if it goes against a minory).

Rothbard, and I doubt you can find anyone much more libertarian than him, wrote that if you knowingly cause suffering or death of another human being, you must be punished "an eye for an eye". In this case, if you spread covid and somebody dies or gets injured because of it, you should fully restitute the victim, even being executed if the heirs decide so.

From a philosophical point of view, freedom or libertarianism doesn't help you here. I would like to read any libertarian serious author that supports your views.

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

#92

Post by jasonpeacock » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #42

xadhominemx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immunization status has never really been considered private. It’s been the norm for 100 years for immunizations to be disclosed to schools, to foreign governments for international travel, to certain types of employers, etc.

And yet it’s never been required for most types of jobs. And here the labor minister is coming down on the side of employees. And it’s important to note, companies are requiring vaccination status whether you’re hybrid or fully remote. Fully remote offering no exposure risk to the company.

Those remote workers are still on the company healthcare plan, and their un-vaxxed status and higher risk of illness/higher cost of treatment definitely creates risk for the company.

Some companies are already charging un-vaxxed employees higher health insurance premiums just for this reason.

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

#93

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

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.

I'll take the words of those particular strangers over yours, after all, you are also a stranger, and an anonymous one at that.

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

#94

Post by soco » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:06 PM UTC

tclst wrote: post #58

The Bloomberg article this site links to states that "as governments struggle to encourage vaccine skeptics to take the shot, companies are increasingly using access to company premises as a clear incentive." I wonder if companies overestimate how much their employees like working fully on-site. Of course, this was how things were in the past for most people. But it's not like work from home is inferior across the bo…

They may not like it but many jobs, even office-based, could tax one heavily if they're not there where all others sit. Customer meetings would be just an example, or workshops, trainings, and so on. Thus missing some points on your performance review scorecard could potentially have some drastic consequences.

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

#95

Post by chadash » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #90

chadash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

Yeah that's entirely permissible. My company can move me from engineering to toilet cleaning if they want. I would probably quit because I would think it's unreasonable, but I doubt I'd win any lawsuits. But I'd argue that this bank's decision is both permissible and reasonable.

In this situation, you have three groups of employees. Group A doesn't want the vaccine. Group B gets the vaccine but doesn't care whether Group A does or doesn't. Group C gets the vaccine and also doesn't want to work around people in Group A out of concern for their own safety. The company has to choose to accommodate either Group A or Group C. In this case, they chose the latter. Many companies will choose the former. But I don't see what's unfair about this? Group A might have started with the company with the expectation that vaccine status is private. But Group C might have started with the expectation that the company will take measures for their safety should situations change.

Note: I think it's debatable as to how many restrictions we should have in place because of Covid. But there's no denying that many people want to reduce their exposure to the virus and I don't think it's unreasonable for a private company to accommodate that.

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

#96

Post by swayvil » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #93

swayvil wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'll take the words of those particular strangers over yours, after all, you are also a stranger, and an anonymous one at that.

You miss my point.

I offer that firsthand observation makes for better knowledge than secondhand.

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

#97

Post by minikites » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #86

minikites wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. (An…

You're omitting part of the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#D.C._m...

>Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."

>Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified as accidental, a homicide, or undetermined.

It sure would be a strange coincidence if his stroke was entirely unrelated as you say.

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

#98

Post by nisegami » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

sennight wrote: post #57

nisegami wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a business has a legitimate incentive to want their employees vaccinated. Every Covid infection is lost productivity. And if it goes poorly, that could be an empty seat that now needs to be filled.

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.

If the people of a country see something as being worth the lost productivity (maternity leave for example), the correct way to handle it would be to legislate it. I agree with sibling commenter that there is an incentive in attracting a wider range of employees for offering benefits that aren't required by law, but I think it's not really enough given the power difference between employees and employers.

Of course, legislative solutions are increasingly impossible in some parts of the world. This is the reason we're relying on companies to make this call.

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

#99

Post by BJBBB » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #90

chadash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

'Constructive Dismissal'.

Many U.S. states have labor law that cover this. And any company that I have seen do anything similar to this has lost money to both the state and the claimant.

Typically, at least for at-will states, the employer simply terminates you without stating any reason. Very simple for the company and the employee at least gets unemployment pay.

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

#100

Post by TMWNN » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #97

TMWNN wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. (An…

You're omitting part of the story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#D.C._m... >Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." >Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified as accide…

"all that transpired played a role in his condition" just means that when something medical happens to someone, obviously everything before the event is evaluated. That doesn't change the fact that

a) Sicknick was never hit by a fire extinguisher, contrary to the early frenzied media reports—corrected weeks after the fact, if at all—that linked such a blow to his death (and contrary to his family, which always insisted that he had never been attacked so)

b) the autopsy specifically looked for some causal effect from the pepper spray and his death, and found nothing

Wecht did not examine Sicknick but claims to be "shocked, amazed" by the "natural" verdict for the officer's death. He does so using a worker's comp example, which is inapplicable in this case. Were it applicable, every single time a police officer dies of a heart attack or stroke a day after a stressful event, the pathologist should rule that death as "non-natural", which of course is nonsense. Heck, Wecht goes further and says—again, without having participated in the autopsy—that there is a strong case for ruling the death a homicide! Good grief.