GE Workers in Ohio and South Carolina Walk Out To Protest Vaccination Mandate

[gbg3]

Only 2% of Kaiser employees opted to quit.
The GE and Southwest employees will also cave.

We'll see.
My guess is that these groups will grow (right now it's half of SWA employees - that's a lot!) and many of the mandates will be withdrawn or the exemptions will become quite readily accepted and easy to get.

 

[MaryP]

750 is just the number at two particular locations, not the total number.



Vaccinated workers are also walking off the job.



And it's interesting to see the people who claim to be supporters of worker solidarity and letting workers have more power over their workspaces suddenly turn against them.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is wise to do so. I have the RIGHT to cheat on my wife. It would be wrong and foolish to do so. GE absolutely has the right to fire people who refuse to work. At the shop local to me (one of their major airline engine production facilities) in North Carolina - which isn't mentioned in the OP or part of the 750 number - production basically didn't happen this week. I have a buddy who works there - just his line not happening cost GE $15 mil. In one week. Of one line.

It's going to be tough for GE to fire entire workforces for using their PTO, sick leave, etc. en masse, especially when those people have a critical skill set that was already in short supply before this whole thing, and doing so costs them tens of millions of dollars at best.

It is not GE's call about the requirements. They can't ignore an OSHA rule. So all those bright folks at your friend's plant are aiming at the wrong target. And wasting their own sick and vacay time in the bargain.

All OSHA rules are about employee safety and during this once in a century pandemic, vaccines are an important part of worker safety. None of this takes a rocket scientist to understand. Being vaccinated during a pandemic is public health common sense, until some Republicans with the sole intent of undermining a Democrat administration turned it into some great patriotic and Constitutional movement. It's Bulloney. It's politics. And those folks who won't vaccinate are dying.

So, walk off the job for another week. Close down the plant. I'm sure these guys' next prospective employer will be delighted to hire an employee like that. But GE can't change the mandate.

 

[vesper]

Do you think there are that many in the area with the right qualifications?

From what I read there were a good number of well educated persons among the group that walked out like engineers. Considering our failed education system in this country, I doubt those jobs will be filled anytime soon.

 

[Logophile]

No, because your hire date has no bearing on your COVID risk. If my objective is a healthy workplace, and I define that has having everyone vaccinated, grandfathering existing employees compromises that goal.

It doesn't matter, regardless of your objective. You objective does not supersede universal human rights, which includes the right of an individual to his or her physical essence.

As an unvaxed employee, you are under no obligation to get vaccinated just as you are under no obligation to work for my company. You can quit at any time. Similarly, I can change the requirements of the job at any time. If your job has been to hand assemble our products, and I then install robots to do the same task, you're no longer qualified (or needed) to work at my factory and your employment is terminated. Similarly, if conditions change, and you suddenly present a health risk to my employees, then I can again declare you as unqualified to work for my company and show you the door.

And yes, of course it's discrimination. It's also legal discrimination.

Layoffs: split decisions on WARN​

Fears that employers would face a sharp spike in class actions under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act have been largely unrealized. So far, a small number of cases have been filed — the majority of which are class actions.

The WARN Act requires employers to provide written notice at least 60 days before closing a plant or implementing a mass layoff, if at least 50 full-time employees (comprising at least one-third of the full-time workforce at a single site) will face an “employment loss,” defined as an involuntary termination (other than a for-cause discharge), a layoff exceeding six months, or a reduction in work hours of more than 50 percent, during each month of any six-month period.

An exception to the 60-day notice requirement exists if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to a natural disaster such as a flood, earthquake, or drought; or is the result of “unforeseeable business circumstances” — a sudden, unexpected event outside the employer’s control. If the exception does apply, then the 60-day notice requirement is excused but not waived altogether; the law requires “as much notice as is practicable.” With respect to COVID-19, the legal dispute has centered largely on whether the pandemic satisfies an exception to the WARN Act’s notice requirements.

The two courts to consider the issue have been split. In one class action in Florida, a federal court denied an employer’s motion to dismiss WARN Act claims on the basis of “the unprecedented economic upheaval” unleashed by COVID-19. The defendant employer argued, “If those circumstances do not qualify for the WARN Act’s exemptions for unforeseeable business circumstances or natural disasters, it is not clear what would.” However, the court disagreed. Although it assumed the pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster,” it found the defense did not apply in this case because the employer did not establish the layoffs were the direct result of a natural disaster. “This isn’t a situation where, for example, a factory was destroyed overnight by a massive flood—that would be a ‘direct result’ of a natural disaster,” the court explained. “This is an indirect result— more akin to a factory that closes after nearby flooding depressed the local economy.”
s for the unforeseeable business circumstances exemption, the court explained that whether the six days’ notice provided in this case was as much notice as practicable under the circumstances was a “hotly contested factual issue” to be resolved at a later stage in the litigation. However, as the appeal was pending, the parties on September 15, 2021, notified the trial court that they had settled the case. The bottom line is that, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had adopted the district court’s reasoning in the case, employers in the circuit would be unable to dispose of WARN Act claims arising from COVID-19 without at least some litigation.

Several other COVID-19-related WARN Act cases are being litigated; several litigants had moved for stays pending the resolution of these questions by a circuit court. Meanwhile, new cases continue to be filed. https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...covid-19-related-class-actions-where-are-they

Just a particular legal aspect out of several. Thought you might find it interesting. Thanks!!

 

[Ethel2]

We'll see.
My guess is that these groups will grow (right now it's half of SWA employees - that's a lot!) and many of the mandates will be withdrawn or the exemptions will become quite readily accepted and easy to get.

See the post below.
It’s not SWA call -or soon it won’t be anyway. OSHA will force any company with 100+ employees to require vaccination.

 

[Ethel2]

It doesn't matter, regardless of your objective. You objective does not supersede universal human rights, which includes the right of an individual to his or her physical essence.

Layoffs: split decisions on WARN​

Fears that employers would face a sharp spike in class actions under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act have been largely unrealized. So far, a small number of cases have been filed — the majority of which are class actions.

The WARN Act requires employers to provide written notice at least 60 days before closing a plant or implementing a mass layoff, if at least 50 full-time employees (comprising at least one-third of the full-time workforce at a single site) will face an “employment loss,” defined as an involuntary termination (other than a for-cause discharge), a layoff exceeding six months, or a reduction in work hours of more than 50 percent, during each month of any six-month period.

An exception to the 60-day notice requirement exists if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to a natural disaster such as a flood, earthquake, or drought; or is the result of “unforeseeable business circumstances” — a sudden, unexpected event outside the employer’s control. If the exception does apply, then the 60-day notice requirement is excused but not waived altogether; the law requires “as much notice as is practicable.” With respect to COVID-19, the legal dispute has centered largely on whether the pandemic satisfies an exception to the WARN Act’s notice requirements.

The two courts to consider the issue have been split. In one class action in Florida, a federal court denied an employer’s motion to dismiss WARN Act claims on the basis of “the unprecedented economic upheaval” unleashed by COVID-19. The defendant employer argued, “If those circumstances do not qualify for the WARN Act’s exemptions for unforeseeable business circumstances or natural disasters, it is not clear what would.” However, the court disagreed. Although it assumed the pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster,” it found the defense did not apply in this case because the employer did not establish the layoffs were the direct result of a natural disaster. “This isn’t a situation where, for example, a factory was destroyed overnight by a massive flood—that would be a ‘direct result’ of a natural disaster,” the court explained. “This is an indirect result— more akin to a factory that closes after nearby flooding depressed the local economy.”
s for the unforeseeable business circumstances exemption, the court explained that whether the six days’ notice provided in this case was as much notice as practicable under the circumstances was a “hotly contested factual issue” to be resolved at a later stage in the litigation. However, as the appeal was pending, the parties on September 15, 2021, notified the trial court that they had settled the case. The bottom line is that, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had adopted the district court’s reasoning in the case, employers in the circuit would be unable to dispose of WARN Act claims arising from COVID-19 without at least some litigation.

Several other COVID-19-related WARN Act cases are being litigated; several litigants had moved for stays pending the resolution of these questions by a circuit court. Meanwhile, new cases continue to be filed. https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...covid-19-related-class-actions-where-are-they

Just a particular legal aspect out of several. Thought you might find it interesting. Thanks!!

Your team already lost a court challenge when a Houston based hospital chain chose to require vaccination. The covidiots sued and lost. This scenario will repeat itself over and over again.

 

[cpwill]

It is not GE's call about the requirements. They can't ignore an OSHA rule. So all those bright folks at your friend's plant are aiming at the wrong target. And wasting their own sick and vacay time in the bargain.

Maybe. Southwest appears to have worked something out, and has already stated that they aren't going to fire anyone over the mandate, but will instead find a way to accommodate them. Additionally, OSHA hasn't - AFAIK - actually issued the mandate, though they've gotten the draft version to the white house for review.

But I thought large corporations like GE were supposed to be the ones who had all that dark-money-power to change political rulings?

All OSHA rules are about employee safety and during this once in a century pandemic, vaccines are an important part of worker safety.

Eh. We see COVID surges among the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike - I was "fully vaccinated" and got "fully daggum sick" when we caught the Delta. The vaccine at this point is "better than no vaccine", unless you have natural immunity, in which case you can partial does can be better, lest you overvaccinate and actually reduce the body's net immunity - the data is muddled and unclear and still coming out, which is what we would expect when dealing with new treatments against a new and mutating virus.

None of this takes a rocket scientist to understand. Being vaccinated during a pandemic is public health common sense, until some Republicans with the sole intent of undermining a Democrat administration turned it into some great patriotic and Constitutional movement. It's Bulloney. It's politics. And those folks who won't vaccinate are dying.

Many Republicans have absolutely politicized this, and gone Full Stupid on it - destructively so. That, however, does not make the opposite approach of treating the vaccine as a political savior any more effective.

So, walk off the job for another week. Close down the plant. I'm sure these guys' next prospective employer will be delighted to hire an employee like that. But GE can't change the mandate.

Possibly. The demand for skilled mechanics who can work airlines outstrips supply, certainly. Personally I think that the mandate is simply going to cause a lot of unnecessary damage, but, we'll see.

 

[Ethel2]

Maybe. Southwest appears to have worked something out, and has already stated that they aren't going to fire anyone over the mandate, but will instead find a way to accommodate them. Additionally, OSHA hasn't - AFAIK - actually issued the mandate, though they've gotten the draft version to the white house for review.

But I thought large corporations like GE were supposed to be the ones who had all that dark-money-power to change political rulings?




Eh. We see COVID surges among the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike - I was "fully vaccinated" and got "fully daggum sick" when we caught the Delta. The vaccine at this point is "better than no vaccine", unless you have natural immunity, in which case you can partial does can be better, lest you overvaccinate and actually reduce the body's net immunity - the data is muddled and unclear and still coming out, which is what we would expect when dealing with new treatments against a new and mutating virus.



Many Republicans have absolutely politicized this, and gone Full Stupid on it - destructively so. That, however, does not make the opposite approach of treating the vaccine as a political savior any more effective.



Possibly. The demand for skilled mechanics who can work airlines outstrips supply, certainly. Personally I think that the mandate is simply going to cause a lot of unnecessary damage, but, we'll see.

Yes, skilled airline mechanics are hard to find. But unless they want to find a new line of work, perhaps selling used cars, they will cave.
There is no such thing as “overvaccinate”. Unless you game the system you can’t get more vaccines than are recommended. They keep track of these things on state databases as far as I know.

 

[Lord of Planar]

From what I read there were a good number of well educated persons among the group that walked out like engineers. Considering our failed education system in this country, I doubt those jobs will be filled anytime soon.

That's my thought as well.

 

[MaryP]

Maybe. Southwest appears to have worked something out, and has already stated that they aren't going to fire anyone over the mandate, but will instead find a way to accommodate them. Additionally, OSHA hasn't - AFAIK - actually issued the mandate, though they've gotten the draft version to the white house for review.

But I thought large corporations like GE were supposed to be the ones who had all that dark-money-power to change political rulings?

I doubt if it's okay to ignore a time sensitive OSHA mandate just because the gov. is updating the rule book. It has already gotten the green light.

Yeah, no, GE doesn't have a magic wand here. Southwest is making a mistake. United Airlines held firm, no loopholes, and is losing 232 of 67,000 employees and its vaccination rate is 99.7%. That is what everyone should be aiming for. If reason and overwhelming evidence won't convince people, give them a choice--the shot or your job. Religious exemptions are being abused and the only valid medical exemption I know of is being allergic to the shot, which is very rare.

Eh. We see COVID surges among the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike - I was "fully vaccinated" and got "fully daggum sick" when we caught the Delta. The vaccine at this point is "better than no vaccine", unless you have natural immunity, in which case you can partial does can be better, lest you overvaccinate and actually reduce the body's net immunity - the data is muddled and unclear and still coming out, which is what we would expect when dealing with new treatments against a new and mutating virus.

Eh, we see 90% of the Covid patients in ICU are unvaccinated. The unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the ones dying. That's enough to base a decision on.

Many Republicans have absolutely politicized this, and gone Full Stupid on it - destructively so.

Then why are you supporting it?

That, however, does not make the opposite approach of treating the vaccine as a political savior any more effective.

The vaccine is at least able to get most of us out of this alive.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, skilled airline mechanics are hard to find. But unless they want to find a new line of work, perhaps selling used cars, they will cave.

I don't know - I don't know the industry well enough to know what non-federal contractor options of that size or greater are out there. I think you are probably right that the majority will come back to the job after a while, and all that will have happened is more economic damage.

There is no such thing as “overvaccinate”.

So, roughly, way it was explained to me by the doctor was: I've gotten the two-dose pfizer and then got Delta, so, I'm basically the most immune person walking around at current, because, while the vaccine trains your body to go after the spike protein, having the actual disease trains your body to go after the spike protein as well as the viral wall and the viral RNA. If you have natural immunity and decide to boost that with one shot of Pfizer, you can strengthen your response - but if you take both shots, you risk reshaping your body's response on the spike protein, instead of having multiple avenues of attack.

 

[NatMorton]

It doesn't matter, regardless of your objective. You objective does not supersede universal human rights, which includes the right of an individual to his or her physical essence.

Layoffs: split decisions on WARN​

Fears that employers would face a sharp spike in class actions under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act have been largely unrealized. So far, a small number of cases have been filed — the majority of which are class actions.

The WARN Act requires employers to provide written notice at least 60 days before closing a plant or implementing a mass layoff, if at least 50 full-time employees (comprising at least one-third of the full-time workforce at a single site) will face an “employment loss,” defined as an involuntary termination (other than a for-cause discharge), a layoff exceeding six months, or a reduction in work hours of more than 50 percent, during each month of any six-month period.

An exception to the 60-day notice requirement exists if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to a natural disaster such as a flood, earthquake, or drought; or is the result of “unforeseeable business circumstances” — a sudden, unexpected event outside the employer’s control. If the exception does apply, then the 60-day notice requirement is excused but not waived altogether; the law requires “as much notice as is practicable.” With respect to COVID-19, the legal dispute has centered largely on whether the pandemic satisfies an exception to the WARN Act’s notice requirements.

The two courts to consider the issue have been split. In one class action in Florida, a federal court denied an employer’s motion to dismiss WARN Act claims on the basis of “the unprecedented economic upheaval” unleashed by COVID-19. The defendant employer argued, “If those circumstances do not qualify for the WARN Act’s exemptions for unforeseeable business circumstances or natural disasters, it is not clear what would.” However, the court disagreed. Although it assumed the pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster,” it found the defense did not apply in this case because the employer did not establish the layoffs were the direct result of a natural disaster. “This isn’t a situation where, for example, a factory was destroyed overnight by a massive flood—that would be a ‘direct result’ of a natural disaster,” the court explained. “This is an indirect result— more akin to a factory that closes after nearby flooding depressed the local economy.”
s for the unforeseeable business circumstances exemption, the court explained that whether the six days’ notice provided in this case was as much notice as practicable under the circumstances was a “hotly contested factual issue” to be resolved at a later stage in the litigation. However, as the appeal was pending, the parties on September 15, 2021, notified the trial court that they had settled the case. The bottom line is that, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had adopted the district court’s reasoning in the case, employers in the circuit would be unable to dispose of WARN Act claims arising from COVID-19 without at least some litigation.

Several other COVID-19-related WARN Act cases are being litigated; several litigants had moved for stays pending the resolution of these questions by a circuit court. Meanwhile, new cases continue to be filed. https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...covid-19-related-class-actions-where-are-they

Just a particular legal aspect out of several. Thought you might find it interesting. Thanks!!

Please cite your source for these “universal human rights.”

 

[cpwill]

I doubt if it's okay to ignore a time sensitive OSHA mandate just because the gov. is updating the rule book. It has already gotten the green light.

There is no rule at current from OSHA to actually enforce.

Yeah, no, GE doesn't have a magic wand here. Southwest is making a mistake.

Maybe so - we will see.

Eh, we see 90% of the Covid patients in ICU are unvaccinated.

Sure. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the actual change in risk for the vast majority of the populace is incredibly small. So we are dealing with small risks on both sides of this ledger.

Then why are you supporting it?

I don't. But not falling off one side of the horse doesn't require me to fall off the other. I won't support exaggerating the vaccine's dangers or pretending that COVID is Just The Flu, and I won't support exaggerating the vaccine's benefits, or pretending that it's some kind of deus ex machina that will stop the disease.

The charge to make everything certain - regardless of whether or was so - and even lie to the public for their own good has made this effort more difficult, and has fueled much of the opposition that is out there. How am I supposed to tell my friends that they should trust the government's medical leaders, when we keep finding out that they have either lied or hidden key information? How am I supposed to get them to trust that OSHA can be trusted to prioritize worker safety, when OSHA has decided that it's suspending reporting requirements for adverse reactions to the vaccine? But everyone wanted the world to be clearly divided between the Certainly Good and Certainly Bad, and so no one was willing to admit that, in fact, we were dealing with a new pandemic, and so there was massive uncertainty. That we have the vaccines we do is an incredible feat by incredibly brilliant people... and our administrative bureaucrats keep undercutting confidence by acting like pompous jackasses who think everyone else is blind and can't see what they do.

The vaccine is at least able to get most of us out of this alive.

We are already well past that point. The survival rate for this thing is over 99% and climbing as we learn more effective treatments.

 

[Logophile]

Please cite your source for these “universal human rights.”

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

https://opseu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/30_basic_human_rights_list_english.pdf

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

Also
In law, coercion and duress refers to a situation where an individual performs an act as a result of threat, violence, or other pressure against the individual. Duress is the pressure which is exerted upon an individual in order to coerce that individual to perform the act that would not be normally performed. https://criminal.laws.com/coercion
Thanks!!

 

[vesper]

There is no rule at current from OSHA to actually enforce.




Maybe so - we will see.



Sure. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the actual change in risk for the vast majority of the populace is incredibly small. So we are dealing with small risks on both sides of this ledger.



I don't. But not falling off one side of the horse doesn't require me to fall off the other. I won't support exaggerating the vaccine's dangers or pretending that COVID is Just The Flu, and I won't support exaggerating the vaccine's benefits, or pretending that it's some kind of deus ex machina that will stop the disease.

The charge to make everything certain - regardless of whether or was so - and even lie to the public for their own good has made this effort more difficult, and has fueled much of the opposition that is out there. How am I supposed to tell my friends that they should trust the government's medical leaders, when we keep finding out that they have either lied or hidden key information? How am I supposed to get them to trust that OSHA can be trusted to prioritize worker safety, when OSHA has decided that it's suspending reporting requirements for adverse reactions to the vaccine? But everyone wanted the world to be clearly divided between the Certainly Good and Certainly Bad, and so no one was willing to admit that, in fact, we were dealing with a new pandemic, and so there was massive uncertainty. That we have the vaccines we do is an incredible feat by incredibly brilliant people... and our administrative bureaucrats keep undercutting confidence by acting like pompous jackasses who think everyone else is blind and can't see what they do.



We are already well past that point. The survival rate for this thing is over 99% and climbing as we learn more effective treatments.

well stated cpwill.

 

[MaryP]

The charge to make everything certain - regardless of whether or was so - and even lie to the public for their own good has made this effort more difficult, and has fueled much of the opposition that is out there. How am I supposed to tell my friends that they should trust the government's medical leaders, when we keep finding out that they have either lied or hidden key information? How am I supposed to get them to trust that OSHA can be trusted to prioritize worker safety, when OSHA has decided that it's suspending reporting requirements for adverse reactions to the vaccine?

This is straight up antivax propaganda with a strong dash of conspiracy theory thrown in. Why would OSHA report adverse vaccine reactions? They don't give the vaccine. That's the doctors' job. The page you linked me to requires any death from Covid contracted at their facility must be reported.

You know, sometimes I think you're worth arguing with, but then you come out with some wingnut garbage like this. By even repeating it, you are indeed supporting the antivaxxers, and not honestly. You may have swallowed it, but it's dishonest suspicion arousing for no purpose but to keep people from taking the shot.

 

[it's just me]

"Right to work" is a pillar of conservatism

Right to work is a legal precedent.

 

[cpwill]

This is straight up antivax propaganda with a strong dash of conspiracy theory thrown in.

Uh. It's a link to OSHA's own page.

Why would OSHA report adverse vaccine reactions?

OSHA requires employers to report every other negative event that occurs that results in illness or injury under 29 CFR 1904. According to OSHA, it is waiving this requirement for adverse reactions to the vaccine explicitly because:

"OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022."​

When the government tells us in advance that it's going to create an exception to it's own work-safety reporting requirements explicitly in order to shape the opinions of the citizenry, that makes it exceptionally difficult to trust that government to honestly lay out the associated risks.

The best data available at current is that the risk from the vaccines is very, very, small. Stupid, stupid, stupid policies like this, however, make that argument more difficult to make, because they reasonably wreck confidence in our institutions to be trustworthy when it comes to communicating those risks.

You know, sometimes I think you're worth arguing with, but then you come out with some wingnut garbage like this. By even repeating it, you are indeed supporting the antivaxxers, and not honestly.

Maybe you should reconsider whether every single statement and piece of data is only true if it is wholly to the favor of your favored pre-determined political outcome.

You may have swallowed it, but it's dishonest suspicion arousing for no purpose but to keep people from taking the shot.

In my own life I am the one trying to quell suspicion. The problem is that the people arousing suspicion are often the very people I am trying to get people to trust. cpwill saying that our public servants should be honest with us when they don't know something doesn't arouse suspicion in the general public - but those public servants obfuscating and deceiving does.

 

[MaryP]

Uh. It's a link to OSHA's own page.



OSHA requires employers to report every other negative event that occurs that results in illness or injury under 29 CFR 1904. According to OSHA, it is waiving this requirement for adverse reactions to the vaccine explicitly because:

"OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022."​

When the government tells us in advance that it's going to create an exception to it's own work-safety reporting requirements explicitly in order to shape the opinions of the citizenry, that makes it exceptionally difficult to trust that government to honestly lay out the associated risks.

The best data available at current is that the risk from the vaccines is very, very, small. Stupid, stupid, stupid policies like this, however, make that argument more difficult to make, because they reasonably wreck confidence in our institutions to be trustworthy when it comes to communicating those risks.




Maybe you should reconsider whether every single statement and piece of data is only true if it is wholly to the favor of your favored pre-determined political outcome.




In my own life I am the one trying to quell suspicion. The problem is that the people arousing suspicion are often the very people I am trying to get people to trust. cpwill saying that our public servants should be honest with us when they don't know something doesn't arouse suspicion in the general public - but those public servants obfuscating and deceiving does.

Well that's a better explanation. But since employers don't give the vaccine, I still don't see why it has anything to do with reporting to OSHA. The vaccine giver, the doctor or the patient reports to VAERS. If you get a serious reaction to the vaccine, you go to your doctor, not your boss.

But be that as it may, when OSHA comes out and explains in full, in writing, why they are not including this, it is hardly being dishonest or hiding anything. Do you think people have a burning desire to know how many of their coworkers had a serious reaction to the vaccine? Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE ANTIVAXXERS TRYING TO CONVINCE EVERYONE NOT TO TAKE THE SHOT.

 

[gbg3]

From what I read there were a good number of well educated persons among the group that walked out like engineers. Considering our failed education system in this country, I doubt those jobs will be filled anytime soon.

I happen to know that a number of engineers are opposing the mandate! Very well educated, trained with years of expertise in specialties, high level security clearances that can take a year to obtain, etc..
Getting a new engineering graduate up to valuable and productive speed in programs like national defense or space programs can easily take 5 years. These companies may slowly fill the vaccine mandate vacancies with new graduates (these graduates are very sought after so the competition for them is strong) but these young new employees won't offer anything more that a supportive role for years. They can hardly even begin to gain expertise until their proper clearances are granted. They are not ready to hit the ground running on programs where experience is essential and takes significant time.

 

[gbg3]

The charge to make everything certain - regardless of whether or was so - and even lie to the public for their own good has made this effort more difficult, and has fueled much of the opposition that is out there. How am I supposed to tell my friends that they should trust the government's medical leaders, when we keep finding out that they have either lied or hidden key information? How am I supposed to get them to trust that OSHA can be trusted to prioritize worker safety, when OSHA has decided that it's suspending reporting requirements for adverse reactions to the vaccine? But everyone wanted the world to be clearly divided between the Certainly Good and Certainly Bad, and so no one was willing to admit that, in fact, we were dealing with a new pandemic, and so there was massive uncertainty. That we have the vaccines we do is an incredible feat by incredibly brilliant people... and our administrative bureaucrats keep undercutting confidence by acting like pompous jackasses who think everyone else is blind and can't see what they do.

This is a great comment!

 

[Ethel2]

I don't know - I don't know the industry well enough to know what non-federal contractor options of that size or greater are out there. I think you are probably right that the majority will come back to the job after a while, and all that will have happened is more economic damage.



So, roughly, way it was explained to me by the doctor was: I've gotten the two-dose pfizer and then got Delta, so, I'm basically the most immune person walking around at current, because, while the vaccine trains your body to go after the spike protein, having the actual disease trains your body to go after the spike protein as well as the viral wall and the viral RNA. If you have natural immunity and decide to boost that with one shot of Pfizer, you can strengthen your response - but if you take both shots, you risk reshaping your body's response on the spike protein, instead of having multiple avenues of attack.

More avoidable economic damage caused entirely by covidiots.
And the end result will be a safer workplace and fewer deaths in the nation.
All damage can be avoided if the covidiots did the right thing and held up their end of the social bargain.

 

[Callen]

happen to know that a number of engineers are opposing the mandate!

Opposing is one thing. Are they prepared to quit? If so where do they think they will find jobs with the same pay and benefits.?

My bet is they may bitch about it but likely are already vaccinated and are going to do nothing more than bitch.

 

[Ethel2]

I happen to know that a number of engineers are opposing the mandate! Very well educated, trained with years of expertise in specialties, high level security clearances that can take a year to obtain, etc..
Getting a new engineering graduate up to valuable and productive speed in programs like national defense or space programs can easily take 5 years. These companies may slowly fill the vaccine mandate vacancies with new graduates (these graduates are very sought after so the competition for them is strong) but these young new employees won't offer anything more that a supportive role for years. They can hardly even begin to gain expertise until their proper clearances are granted. They are not ready to hit the ground running on programs where experience is essential and takes significant time.

I know about as much about engineering as engineers know about medicine. If they took the time to listen to their own doctors the vast majority of them would already have been vaccinated.

 

[Ethel2]

Opposing is one thing. Are they prepared to quit? If so where do they think they will find jobs with the same pay and benefits.?

My bet is they may bitch about it but likely are already vaccinated and are going to do nothing more than bitch.

They may take a little time off, but when their wallets begin to hurt they’ll be back.