Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"A published study, focusing on the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of available COVID-19 vaccines, also recently examined the legal and the EUA statute provision requiring that individuals must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration….” Some have asserted that individuals must be given the option to opt-out of receiving a vaccine issued under EUA status. However, this language does not appear to prevent an at-will employer from making the vaccine a condition of employment. As noted by the study, the statute’s reference to “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,” could fairly be interpreted to encompass termination of employment or other adverse employment actions. EEOC also expressly references the COVID-19 vaccines’ authorization under EUA status without suggesting that it impedes an employer’s authority to require them." (my emphasis)
Those are not experimental. There are laws governing the administration of experimental, they can't just mandate, it is highly unethical and we put to death many who did such experiments during WW2 and the Nuremburg trials.
I don't see why it matters, legally. The vaccines have emergency use clearance. There is no federal law that prevents a private employer from requiring its employees to get a vaccine. I don't know of any state law in Texas that would stop this either. The employee can simply quit.
I don't see why it matters, legally. The vaccines have emergency use clearance. There is no federal law that prevents a private employer from requiring its employees to get a vaccine. I don't know of any state law in Texas that would stop this either. The employee can simply quit.
That suit has 117 employees signed on - Houston methodist has 8 hospitals with almost 29,000 employees. Texas is an *at will* state, so the hospital can fire anyone they wish to fire for any reason they wish.
No one says one unvaccinated employee "by default has COVID and is going to kill everyone they come in contact with." What is true is that a hospital is a high risk environment for spread of the virus from infected patients to employees and from infected employees to vulnerable, high risk patients.
Infected employees cannot work, which creates staffing problems.
No one is going to refuse to care for an unvaccinated patient but the preference would be not to take care of a COVID-19 infected trauma patient.
They must not be too concerned about staffing problems if they are willing to fire people who don't get the shot.
What is that supposed to mean? "The preference would be to not take care of...." Hospitals treat whoever comes in the door. Criminals, gang members, junkies infected with God-knows-what...everyone.
The emergency use clearance has rules. Go read them, they have to FULLY explain ALL adverse effects to people who take them, they have to inform them that they are COMPLETELY voluntary, as well as the possible consequences of not taking it and they have to inform ALL employees of this.
here is something most employers do not know. While the vaccine makers are immune to lawsuit over adverse effects of a vaccine, an employer is not. So, while the insurance company gets to say "Nope, no covering!" and the Government gets to say "F OFF" and Pharma gets to say "Sorry, no responsibility", the Employer gets stuck with the legal ramifications.
I just wonder how many of these stupid businesses understand this. Personally, having worked for major companies, I can tell you many of them have no clue about the details.
Just so you understand, if you have ANY complication due to this (remember, this is experimental, mRNA programming while not "new", has never passed animal trials, and you will have ZERO legal ability when taken).
Keep in mind, in lab tests, the animals did not all show major issues right away. It took 8-12 months before things started happening (most when they encountered the wild form of the virus) and then they all began to die off. Also, the various effects that are listed (and don't be fooled, it is multiple times more than people are linking here, go ahead and open up that paper warning that comes with the vaccine) which can happen any time in the future.
This means, all of those "effects" are ticking time bombs which can show up in time.
So, this is experimental, forcing this on people is wrong ethically and with the current laws also unlawfully. Just because the government does it, or encourages it, doesn't make it legal or right, don't be naïve.
After reading excessively on this topic, I personally would not touch it at all, but that is me.. you do you you, you are an adult, you can make your own decisions and live by the consequences, but remember... Once this is done, it can NEVER be undone. You are adjusting your mRNA sequence and your body from here on out will generate programing to create these spike proteins which may or may not result in benefit to you.
I refuse to be an experiment and will act in all means to refuse such.
See, the thing is, people keep acting like they are being civil, but they are not. Threatening to boycott, ban, and exclude as well as "tag" (ie make means to identify those who do not comply) is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did, no way around it... it is the same, people just claim they are doing it for a good cause, but remember, the Nazis also believed they were doing it for a good cause.
And for what? For a virus that we are finding out has less than a 1 percent chance of death for most?
This isn't about health.
This isn't about caring about others.
This is about subjugation through an alternate ideology.
This is an outright declaration of war on free people, and people should act accordingly.
Even if all that is true, it's still not illegal. The hospital is allowed to make a bad business decision. The employees can consent or not consent. If they don't consent, they can go elsewhere. I still haven't seen any actual law that this violates.
"A published study, focusing on the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of available COVID-19 vaccines, also recently examined the legal and the EUA statute provision requiring that individuals must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration….” Some have asserted that individuals must be given the option to opt-out of receiving a vaccine issued under EUA status. However, this language does not appear to prevent an at-will employer from making the vaccine a condition of employment. As noted by the study, the statute’s reference to “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,” could fairly be interpreted to encompass termination of employment or other adverse employment actions. EEOC also expressly references the COVID-19 vaccines’ authorization under EUA status without suggesting that it impedes an employer’s authority to require them." (my emphasis)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtPlane
Your study is not a validated opinion, it is a manufactured word salad propaganda push.
The law is clear, an individual can not be mandated or coerced into taking an experimental vaccine. To do so violates the Nurmberg codes, and it does violate federal law nor matter how much "peer review" and word salad you attempt to throw at it.
You are fear mongering and the law will be found once this hits (which it is in the process of now in multiple venues).
Funny thing is how many people will die at the line to defend the right to force an experimental vaccination that numerous adverse effects AND IS NOT covered by the manufacture through any litigation is acceptable, but turning away someone based on their sexual preference is somehow a absolute abomination of rights.
Let me guess, you support the Civil Rights Act, but are for this?
Yes --- At-Will employment practices protect the employee from being sued by the employer for having terminated their employment and visa versa --- no reason has to be stated for termination, by either party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtPlane
The law is clear, an individual can not be mandated or coerced into taking an experimental vaccine. To do so violates the Nurmberg codes, and it does violate federal law nor matter how much "peer review" and word salad you attempt to throw at it.
EEOC enforces federal law. An employee may opt out, but doing so does not guarantee their employment to continue under said employer --- Policy changes within a company occur all the time; many during the time an employee is currently working; they can not sue their employer because they do not like the policy change and want to continue working under the old policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtPlane
Funny thing is how many people will die at the line to defend the right to force an experimental vaccination that numerous adverse effects AND IS NOT covered by the manufacture through any litigation is acceptable, but turning away someone based on their sexual preference is somehow a absolute abomination of rights.
Currently there are no federal laws mandating vaccines. People are self-governing and there isn't a federal law to stop them from doing that, not in this case.
I don't see why it matters, legally. The vaccines have emergency use clearance. There is no federal law that prevents a private employer from requiring its employees to get a vaccine. I don't know of any state law in Texas that would stop this either. The employee can simply quit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtPlane
The emergency use clearance has rules. Go read them, they have to FULLY explain ALL adverse effects to people who take them, they have to inform them that they are COMPLETELY voluntary, as well as the possible consequences of not taking it and they have to inform ALL employees of this.
here is something most employers do not know. While the vaccine makers are immune to lawsuit over adverse effects of a vaccine, an employer is not. So, while the insurance company gets to say "Nope, no covering!" and the Government gets to say "F OFF" and Pharma gets to say "Sorry, no responsibility", the Employer gets stuck with the legal ramifications.
What is the expected timeline of the lawsuit from the employees?
If it takes longer than ~3 months then the Pfizer vaccine will likely be fully approved by then.
No it won't be approved, and besides that'd be in record time for any vaccine EVER. How can it be approved if the clinical trials aren't even complete? Those don't wrap up until 2022-2023.
I signed nothing waiving any rights to a test project. So sorry charlie! I knew full that the vaccine is not going to alter my genetic makeup and turn me into a 'they or IT.
If my school district requires vaccination for measles, I'd think a health care facility can be kind and have the staff innoculated. If you wish to work in India , .maybe they'll bend the rules since the population is suffering from not having it.
I had to have a tetinus shot before returning to work.
Unsure there is a federal labor law saying a health establishment is violating an employee by requiring a pandemic remedy be administered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
