I see lawsuits in the works if this will still be pushed @cisco
13 replies (most recent on top)
"I laughed at the person commenting that he had to create his own religion in order to have a religious objection to the vaccination. That's not a religious belief. It may be a STRONGLY held PERSONAL belief, but it's NOT a religious belief."
That was me you idi0t. And of course someone like you would misrepresent what happened. I'm going to try and break it down for you again as you may have a learning disability.
I did not start my religion in order to create a religious objection to the vaccine. The religion I created just so happens to be against vaccines. If you want to get them, fine. But my religion allows full body autonomy.
Do I need to break it down any further?
@1tti+1eMrHuN3, who is discriminating against you? No one on my team has shared their status in any way with the rest of the team unless they wanted to. Mostly by saying "I'm taking today off, I feel like cr-p after yesterday's vaccination."
All the manager knows is your status: compliant or non-compliant.
If they're being discriminated against, it's not because they filed for an exemption. It's how they complained about the policy and how the ELT is "woke", etc. If they'd just kept their mouths shut, filed for their exemption, and didn't make a big public spectacle out of it, then they'd have been fine.
To my knowledge, we only had one team member who refused the vaccination. We didn't even realize he'd refused it until he'd caught COVID and ended up in the hospital where he passed away 2 weeks later in the late summer. His sister shared his obituary with us and it vocally called out his support for a particular politician and his being against all the safety mandates.
Discrimination has nothing to do with religious belief in this context....it is the fact many of us are religious and see nothing in religion that prohibits a vaccination. I resent those that try to find a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate that are only using religion as a means to get their way. I hate the mandate but would never sell out my religious beliefs over this. Two wrongs don't equal one right.
FACT. This is why I keep calling out all the people who are crying religious exemption. If it's really your religious beliefs, then you should have readily available proof that you've held this belief before the pandemic for other vaccinations. If you had religious objections, you've probably already documented them for the other vaccinations you refused.
I laughed at the person commenting that he had to create his own religion in order to have a religious objection to the vaccination. That's not a religious belief. It may be a STRONGLY held PERSONAL belief, but it's NOT a religious belief.
I was brought up in a religious household. Watching all the people who were so pious on Sunday's and hypocritical the rest of the week just turned me off from organized religion. The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality brings such a bad name to religion. The people who were religious who'd back a lying, corrupt person who cheats on his wives just to get conservative judges nominated is beyond me. There were so many better candidates who could have made the same, or better, nominations if they'd just voted differently in the primary. Oh well. Such is life.
Discrimination has nothing to do with religious belief in this context....it is the fact many of us are religious and see nothing in religion that prohibits a vaccination. I resent those that try to find a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate that are only using religion as a means to get their way. I hate the mandate but would never sell out my religious beliefs over this. Two wrongs don't equal one right.
The reason sharing religious beliefs isn't usually done in the workplace is because it comes with rampant discrimination.
Most of the people who were forced to out themselves have faced career backlash. Including being fired. They are told it is for other reasons, but there were no problems with the employees pre-vaxx and religious info being shared.
Many religious people are considered crazy in the modern climate. Which causes undue strife and hardship for the religious people we work with.
I have heard so many reports of discrimination for the individuals who were targetted in this that they have more than enough grounds for a lawsuit.
People aren't suing the companies, they are suing the individuals that ordered the policy. In this case it would be Fran and Chuck. They are not protected by any law as there is none protecting them. I think there is a good chance for ELT's at many companies to get bankrupted as the company insurance does not protect them in this scenario either
Its the internet so the fact that this post is from an id--t should come as no surprise. What's sad is somehow someone with so little intelligence may have found their way into Cisco.
Cisco would defend its execs sued for their actions taken as Cisco execs, perhaps with the exception of them doing something illegal like running someone down in the parking lot for making d-mb sh*t posts on internet forums.
And there's nothing to defend. Companies can and have instituted vaccination policies. Totally legal, no federal prompting is required. Cisco would be totally within its rights to acknowledge the court's decision and say we're still requiring you to get vaccinated.
Those seeking religious exemption were made to express and justify their beliefs to a complete stranger.
And religious people don't like sharing and justifying their beliefs with complete strangers? So those people who come knocking on my door once or twice a year wanting to share salvation with me aren't religious? Good to know. I'll be sure to tell them that.
Asking you to share your belief and justify it is like the Naturalization and Immigration people making sure that non-US citizens trying to marry a US citizen for citizenship aren't doing a "fake" paper marriage so they can divorce a year or so later and have citizenship.
How many of those with objections based on religious beliefs only had that objection to THIS vaccination? Don't hate on me just because I'm poking holes in the claims of a significant portion of the people who are claiming this religious objection. I don't care if people get vaccinated or not and I didn't support the mandates, but I do object to people using BS excuses and then getting all defensive when they get called out on their BS. Grow some ba--s and object to it for whatever grounds you object to.
“ I see lawsuits in the works if this will still be pushed @cisco”
Sue for what? Because Cisco followed an EO that gave you the choice between getting vaccinated or exiting the company? Unless the vaccine caused long-lasting complications which can without the shadow of a doubt be attributed to the vaccine, I don’t see a basis for a lawsuit.
People aren't suing the companies, they are suing the individuals that ordered the policy. In this case it would be Fran and Chuck. They are not protected by any law as there is none protecting them. I think there is a good chance for ELT's at many companies to get bankrupted as the company insurance does not protect them in this scenario either
Regardless of how I feel about any of the mandates, or even Cisco's handling of them, the OSHA mandate, while it applied to Cisco as a company with more than 100 employees, was never mentioned by the ELT as the reason for requiring us to get vaccinated.
They said it was due to the Ex Order for Federal Contractors to vaccinate and it's lack of a testing alternative that was their deciding factor to mandate Cisco employees to be vaccinated. I believe, but I could be wrong, that that EO was temporarily blocked by the courts and Cisco has put the vaccination on hold.
I've been wondering if/when Cisco would switch horses mid stream, so to speak, and try to claim that the OSHA requirement now applied, but it looks like they dodged that bullet. And I've not liked that requirement, because who pays for the testing for those who don't want to get vaccinated? Not fair to the individual to make them bear the brunt of it. If you say, let their insurance pay for it, Cisco is self insured, so Cisco ends up paying for it. And having Cisco pay for it, either outright or via your medical insurance, all that does is make you an expensive employee and makes for a bigger target on your back come the next LR round. And, if that person is letting their spouse's med ins pay for it, that just increases the costs of healthcare in America, which is already ridiculous.
I'd hate to be in the minority of people who got vaccinated between the time the mandate was announced and then blocked because they didn't want to lose their jobs. I think they have a valid cause to sue Cisco, but for what I don't know. I think you'd have to actually prove harm from the vaccine to get any sort of money & the lawyers will take the bulk of that.
The Federal contractor mandate was blocked by the courts.
Completely irrelevant to the Cisco policy. Try to follow along.
FYI - The vaccine mandate at Cisco had nothing to do at all with the OSHA vaccine mandate. The Cisco vaccine requirement was a result of the federal contractor executive order which is still in the courts. It more closely aligned to the vaccine requirements the court upheld related to medicare.....that is if you take medicare or Medicaid money the requirements from the EO stand (ie the vaccine mandate)