Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Jan 28, 2020.
If they are relying upon OSHA, I would certainly point them towards the NATIONAL INJUNCTION which cited the over-reach by OSHA as well as the other half-dozen or so courts which have ruled against the mandate.
Now, that being said...if they decide on their own to require shot or testing...you may be on your own. But OSHA as their basis...yeah, I would suggest they revisit their underlying basis of the direction.
From OSHA's own site... COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
I heard on talk radio this morning that the next variant that pops up will be named the Mid Term Variant
Each one should be called what it is, "The distract from the Biden Shitshow Variant", and Roman numeral them.
Dying COVID-19 Patient Recovers After Court Orders Hospital to Administer Ivermectin
My company is telling me to register my vaxx status just in case the mandate implementation comes down in January. The notice said companies can face large fines if there is delay in implementation.
Trademark violation, sir. I coined the Biden Shitshow(TM). Permit me to introduce my attorney, @Mr. Deez. Possibly you have heard of him?
That t'ain't right, right there.
Since there is no rule to be implemented at the moment, there is no delay that will occur from waiting until litigation plays out and the mandate has been buried.
Please see attached for the wording used:
They are FoS. There IS no law. Further, any time for compliance would necessarily have been tolled during the pendency of the litigation.
Sadly, it seems you work for an employer that supports the nonsensical requirements. They will do whatever contortions are required to make people submit to the clot shot.
Drives me nuts when airports blare about these stupid mask rules being "Federal law" and not complying could lead to "...penalties under Federal law."
Wow, this is the second time today I feel like an interweb lahyuh.
Many employers probably want the mandate, because they ultimately want their employees to get vaccinated. They assume it'll cut down on absence and liability. However, by having the mandate, they can tell their apprehensive employees that it's not their choice or decision.
They are stupid if they believe that.
Are they? Suppose they don't require it, and some employee spreads Covid to a customer while on the job. A lawsuit could arise from that. Suppose an employee spreads Covid to another employee. A workers compensation claim could arise from that. On the flip side, at least as a general rule, firing someone for refusal to get vaccinated will not lead to a claim for wrongful termination. I'm not a fan of requiring vaccinations as a condition of employment, but looking at it from a risk management perspective, it's not crazy.
Get used to it. That crap is never going away with a Democrat in the White House. Next Saturday, we're flying from LHR to DFW (going to spend Christmas hollidays with family and hanging out in Belton, Dallas, and San Antonio). One day before departure, every person on that plane will have taken a Covid test and gotten a negative result, and of course, as you know the HEPA filters significantly cut down on the potential for spreading disease on planes. In short, it's about the lowest risk scenario you can be in. Despite that, we'll all have to wear masks on the plane (except when we're eating or drinking, which of course encourages passengers to get slobbering drunk on the plane). If government officials can't let up a little in that situation, then somebody in government is enjoying this **** way too much.
Yes, I think they are stupid to believe that this jab reducers the chance that people will get sick from covid. Plenty of jabbed people are getting it anyway, just as plenty of unjabbed are not getting it. So, yes, I think they are stupid.
The fact that if there is no fed law or mandate to be jabbed and a company could be sued for not requiring it on their own speaks more to the lawsuit crazy mentality in this country. That should be addressed. Lawsuits like that should just be thrown out.
Belton, eh? You and @Garmel going to visit some...um...places together?
His wife is from Belton so I assume that his in-laws are here.
Aren't you near there, too? And all the questionable hookers, etc.? There, I said it...
I live in Belton. Nah, my wild days are done.
The liability angle has more to do with the damages side of things.
I'll defend the lawsuits here. If some jackass with Covid shows up to work, coughs on me and gives me Covid and I die, yep, my family is suing. That's not crazy.
I don't know, man. He scares me.
You should be.
We look forward to pics of you and Deez at the bar.
Would you have sued over flu or some other airborne virus? You aren't going to die from covid like that, and neither are the majority of people. We'll have to disagree here.
Yeah, he's scary lol.
Further, if someone shows up to work obviously sick, that has always been a problem. I doubt most people are doing that now because of the hypersensitive nature of this covid crap.
Can't go to bars any more due to asthma. I'm pretty much a stay at home nerd now.
You wouldn't be able to make a lawsuit work on a strict liability basis. By that I mean that you wouldn't be able to hold someone liable if he had no symptoms and no reason to believe he was sick. There'd have to be some negligent act or omission by the person who passed along the virus such as going into work with reason to believe he was infectious - significant symptoms, fever, etc.
The type of virus wouldn't matter. It's the damage that would matter. If someone passes the common cold to me through negligence, could I sue? I suppose, but the damages would be far too small to make a lawsuit economically viable. However, if the person infected actually died (from Covid but also potentially the flu or something else), then yes, it would be worth pursuing. And of course all of this presupposes that you could pretty definitively establish that you contracted the virus from a particular person or place, which would be hard as hell to do. This isn't the kind of liability companies are deeply worried about. The payout could be big, but the risk of liability is very low, because proving the case would be very hard.
But here's how it could get ugly for a company. Suppose the State of New York or California (either by statute or by a common law ruling from its court) decides that businesses not only have a duty not to let people they know to be sick come to work (which I think most people would think is pretty fair) but have a legal duty to require vaccination of its employees or test them for Covid and suppose a business doesn't do that. Well, I'd still have to tie my Covid case to that business, which would be tough, but if I could do that, forcing liability would be much easier. The failure to require vaccination or testing would itself be enough to constitute negligence and therefore liability.
There you go. How to prove where you contracted an airborne virus. Very difficult at best I would say.
Allow me to rephrase. Stupid that too many people have been scared by this virus and we continue to talk about it in this vein.
Really? It is virtually impossible to 100% confirm without a doubt where they caught a virus. Just because someone they were in contact with is known to be sick doesn't make that known sick person guilty.
You don't have to prove it to 100 percent without a doubt. If the was the standard, nobody would ever be liable for or go to jail for anything. You have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Very hard to do? Yes. Impossible? No.