Vaccine or not?

#24,376
#24,376
tnmarktx said:
If an employee gets injured due to the direction of the employer, they're liable. It's well documented that you supported the right of employers right to enforce vaccine mandates. Luckily, you most likely were just being dumb on a message board and didn't enforce it on your employees. Be happy.
Click to expand...

I absolutely opposed any vax mandates and never once instituted one. I do support the right for an employer to set their employment terms because I fully believe in the right to free association.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette and Orangeslice13
#24,379
#24,379
BigOrangeMojo said:
Less than 1% of Americans practice a religion that has anti-vax as part of their doctrine.

I had an employee try to claim religious vax exemption for COVID the day after she got a flu shot...
Click to expand...

I do think not granting a religious exemption to everyone that asked was a dumb move by employers.
 
#24,380
#24,380
VolinWayne said:
As a business owner, if one of my employees are injured as a direct result of a policy change that I mandated then I absolutely should be held responsible. Over the years we have seen businesses sued for far less. I recall a lawsuit where McDonald's got sued for their coffee being to hot.
Click to expand...

You need to research that McDonalds lawsuit, in no way does it support the point you are trying to make. And no you would not be liable for someone getting injured as a result of a policy change. Any potential liability would depend on what the policy changes were.

Example. If you changed the work from home policy to everyone has to come to the office, you wouldn’t be liable for an employee getting hurt on their way to work. But if you changed the policy on protective eyewear, eliminating the requirement for certain tasks and someone lost an eye you probably would be liable.
 
#24,381
#24,381
hog88 said:
I do think not granting a religious exemption to everyone that asked was a dumb move by employers.
Click to expand...

My wife worked for California based company so you had to deal with Cal govt agencies. As you can imagine, the California govt was vax gung-ho and really skeptical of religious exemptions. Many companies wanted most unvaxxed had to find a doctor that would give a medical exemption.

That's one reason why companies did not uniformly grant them if they did business in other states...
 
#24,383
#24,383
VolinWayne said:
The key words are "direct result". Is driving into my office a direct result of my policy change? Sure, it wouldn't have happened had I not made them drive to work, but it also probably wouldn't have happened had they been more careful. If I force my employees to take an EUA drug and they can prove that their health was damaged as a direct result of my mandate, they should absolutely sue me. The only way they could have avoided this was to choose not to take the jab and loose their job
Click to expand...

Why?
 
#24,384
#24,384
hog88 said:
Neither are most employees.
Click to expand...
I never said they were. But employers and business owners are not protected either. I think I also proved this in that back and forth I had with two of your pals in here regarding pizza delivery drivers.
 
#24,385
#24,385
I'm absolutely against mandates but I'm absolutely OK with a business legally running it's operations as it sees fit. If a business had a mandate and employees quit, that's a cost of the mandate...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and hog88
#24,386
#24,386
BigOrangeMojo said:
My wife worked for California based company so you had to deal with Cal govt agencies. As you can imagine, the California govt was vax gung-ho and really skeptical of religious exemptions. Many companies wanted most unvaxxed had to find a doctor that would give a medical exemption.

That's one reason why companies did not uniformly grant them if they did business in other states...
Click to expand...

I get that, one of our largest clients kept pressuring and threatening vendors to require the vax. I cashed almost every chit I had built up over the last 20 years delaying until they let it go. The .gov mandates put a lot of employers between a rock and a hard place.
 
#24,387
#24,387
DonjoVol said:
I never said they were. But employers and business owners are not protected either. I think I also proved this in that back and forth I had with two of your pals in here regarding pizza delivery drivers.
Click to expand...

You proved something?
 
#24,389
#24,389
Natural Immunity FTW
@NaturallyFTW
·
21h
Everything wrong with health in America, in one pic.

FlqCLvvWABUEJbT
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, DC_Vol, jaybird_1981 and 3 others
#24,392
#24,392
hog88 said:
You need to research that McDonalds lawsuit, in no way does it support the point you are trying to make. And no you would not be liable for someone getting injured as a result of a policy change. Any potential liability would depend on what the policy changes were.

Example. If you changed the work from home policy to everyone has to come to the office, you wouldn’t be liable for an employee getting hurt on their way to work. But if you changed the policy on protective eyewear, eliminating the requirement for certain tasks and someone lost an eye you probably would be liable.
Click to expand...

Looks like we are both in aggreeance then that if one of my employees is injured by the vaccine that I forced him to take (or loose his job) then I absolutely am reliable for his injury. The bolded part is basically the same thing
 
#24,393
#24,393
VolinWayne said:
Looks like we are both in aggreeance then that if one of my employees is injured by the vaccine that I forced him to take (or loose his job) then I absolutely am reliable for his injury.
Click to expand...

No, we are not in agreement. How can you take that statement and twist it to make you think it supports your point?
 
#24,395
#24,395
So where do all of you legal experts and business owners stand on demanding someone drive to work after a snow storm? I had a boss that that called me once and demanded that I come into work after a snowstorm because I had a 4wd truck. I told him to kiss my ass unless he agreed to pay for any damage.
 
#24,397
#24,397
hog88 said:
No, we are not in agreement. How can you take that statement and twist it to make you think it supports your point?
Click to expand...


I'm not twisting anything. I'll try this one more time....If an employee is injured as a direct result of a policy that I put into place, then I am absolutely liable for his injury. This is true in both your point
👇 and my point directly up there☝️
But if you changed the policy on protective eyewear, eliminating the requirement for certain tasks and someone lost an eye you probably would be liable.)
Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
 
#24,398
#24,398
VolStrom said:
So where do all of you legal experts and business owners stand on demanding someone drive to work after a snow storm? I had a boss that that called me once and demanded that I come into work after a snowstorm because I had a 4wd truck. I told him to kiss my ass unless he agreed to pay for any damage.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
#24,399
#24,399
VolStrom said:
So where do all of you legal experts and business owners stand on demanding someone drive to work after a snow storm? I had a boss that that called me once and demanded that I come into work after a snowstorm because I had a 4wd truck. I told him to kiss my ass unless he agreed to pay for any damage.
Click to expand...

I actually care about my employees so if I honestly thought there was a danger to you coming in I would not have asked you to come in. If it truly was dangerous then your response was warranted in my opinion.
 
#24,400
#24,400
VolinWayne said:
I'm not twisting anything. I'll try this one more time....If an employee is injured as a direct result of a policy that I put into place, then I am absolutely liable for his injury. This is true in both your point
👇 and my point in the directly up there☝️
But if you changed the policy on protective eyewear, eliminating the requirement for certain tasks and someone lost an eye you probably would be liable.)
Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Click to expand...

No, you are not liable unless the policy violated state/federal rules, regulations or norms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top