Thread regarding IBM layoffs

@1afl who wants to work next to someone who's HIV positive or has Hep B or C? Or tuberculosis? Or scabies? The only reason IBM and other companies are able to marginalize people who are not vaccinated against a virus that is 99.9% recoverable is because there's nothing in title VII to protect them. Bigot much?

Who wants to work next to a bunch of "religious exempt" coworkers who also don't believe in masks and are dying to catch up with you. NOONE!!!

"Will IBM require a test for HIV, and insist that anyone who tests positive start taking AZT?"

I don't know. Is HIV transmissible by air or everyday contact?

This is so typical of the pro-virus crowd. They just keep cycling around the same ludicrous exaggerations, blatant lies*, and disproven claims. As soon as you knock one down, they move to the next, and then back around to the same one again.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, but eventually they will have to accept that they have been lied to by people who had a political agenda.

*My "favorite" is lie that "the vaccine is not 100% effective, therefore it doesn't work". In reality this is the case with every single vaccine you have ever taken. 'Flu vaccine is typically 40% to 60% effective. The previous gen shingles vaccine barely more than 50% (the current one is much better). The MMR vaccine that nearly all of us got as kids is 97% effective against measles and 88% against mumps. Does anybody say we shouldn't take those on the grounds that they are less than 100% effective? Of course not. Vaccination programs are about two things: protecting the individual, and preventing a pandemic. If each of us has 90% protection, collectively we have much better protection. Whenever somebody tr--s out this line, you know for sure they are not debating in good faith, but are pushing a political agenda.

The "new language" being used is basically a blanket unpaid LOA for "non-compliant"--meaning an exemption denial, or didn't submit anything--starting "Mid January".

The only thing posted on the FAQ page regarding the federal mandate being blocked is that "IBM is reviewing the decision impact, and all unpaid leave will comply with applicable law."

IBMs CEO, Arvind Kirshna, has continuously used the federal mandate as the basis/justification and reasoning for IBMs enforcement of the policy. Specifically why IBM was not allowing any WFH accomodations, testing, etc. While I understand the block on the federal mandate doesn't stop IBM from instituting its own policy, I would hope this pushes IBM to expand it's "accomodations", allowing for testing and WFH options, at the very least. Again, Arvind continuously used the federal mandate as reasoning why this was not an available option to employees. Well, the mandate will never pass into law in the American court system, so I'm very curious how Arvind will back peddle on this one, if much at all..

PDF I read says vaccine required for people working on site or customer site.
So unvaccinated can stay wfh then?
It’s vague

@hir
Your statement that unvaccinated people with natural immunity are the safest to be around is absolutely incorrect.

@has simply stated a point far more accurate than anything in your post.

And the reason conversations are impossible to have is because arrogant people like you think they are always right. That's what also makes you so defensive. And boring

Will IBM require a test for HIV, and insist that anyone who tests positive start taking AZT?

@hss+1eet7Q8v

This is why conversations are impossible to have. I say something that is true, but people don’t like the truth and hit the down vote button. Then you respond with something completely different than what I said and skip right over it. Talk about deflection.

Naturally acquired antibodies dissipate within 6 months. And there are people who have been infected multiple times within a 6 month period.

IBM needs to immediately fire anyone that asks for a religious exemption.

Why would anyone else want to work for a mo--n that might infect them?

I would imagine that there may be some monetary motivation to get rid of unvaccinated by year end, so those not sharing vaccination status may have volunteered themselves for early termination (if they had you on a list anyway, cheaper to just fire you for reason rather than pay severance), but I believe the actual schedule was something along the lines of putting people on unpaid leave starting in mid-January. That would give IBM the necessary time to sort out the paperwork and double-check names, process exceptions, etc. IBM management is probably having a look-see at the staffing impacts. If they are too bad in certain areas, they may postpone some (that may have been the plan all along). And really the vaccinations are to get people back in person, that might be just barely feasible in Austin and San Jose, but unrealistic in most of the Northern USA (New York is particularly in the dumper at the moment), particularly with Omicron looming. So IBM might kick the can down the road, wait out the current wave.

But what I do not see happening is IBM dropping the vaccine requirement entirely, the executives really want to get back in person, as soon as is feasible, and realistically they cannot accomplish that without vaccine mandates. For every anti-Vaxer, they would probably lose five that did not want to work with him or her, at least in-person. Allowing unvaccinated in-person would also drive up medical costs, insurance rates are going up anyway but much more for unvaccinated, drive up testing costs (or IBM may just shift that to the employee), and if it led to outbreaks, a lot of lost productivity from sickness and quarantines. Also raise the need for more office space and refactoring, which would be expensive. So weighing the cost/benefit, IBM may delay implementation of unpaid leaves or terminations a bit, but I do not see them backing off of the mandates much otherwise.

Not me. Nor did my manager say a word about it. Nor did I hear a word about my Religious Exemption (er ah "Accommodation").