So we've actually improved on that, thankfully! The pro-vacccination crowd doesn't seem like the crowd that's looking to turn back that clock.
The 2010 plan also had a lifetime max benefit limit, which has now been removed.
Or it could just be some plans are more privacy-invasive than others. But I hope not, it was nice to be able to stop filling out those forms.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3346210001
Also, what would be the next part after this? We would want to first evaluate that before allowing them access to it.
As for remote workers, I think that is a legitimate point and something companies should consider.
(1) It is not clearly a condition of employment, as remote work remains available, generally til mod October and individually beyond that.
(2) The work condition to which it is relevant is “in office work” because of the still-ongoing pandemic, which has not historically been a work condition requiring vaccination.
(3) The vaccines involved are under Emergency Use Authorizations, not generally approved.
To the extent that #2 and #3 might otherwise make the policy questionable, I think as long as #1 is still the case there's not much real ground for that.
Maybe click on it and read it before flying off on the handle?
I think you’ve already decided what to believe and are just looking for ways to justify it. You’ve just got to support this “anti-freedom” narrative somehow for whatever mysterious reason that’s important to your ego and sense of self.
I don’t get it.
Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.
If you ask most people on the right how the virus has affected them, their friends or family, they'll tell you the lockdowns and mandates have been 100x more harmful to their entire community, family and friends than the virus has been. This is an extremely common response.
They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe.
My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.
And they're not so much "mandating the health of their workers", they're mandating that their workers don't harm other workers.
> If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol?
If enough people got wasted at work and hurt other employees as a result, they'd probably think about limiting alcohol at events at the office. That's a closer example to this vaccination requirement.
I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.
When you're vaccinated, you receive a small official card with the vaccination details. In the United States, the vaccines are free.
This has nothing to do with your general medical history or medical records.
It's the narrowest, most specific data point possible to establish that you won't put other innocent people in the building at risk of a new outbreak.
> What if they do other things after this thing?
What if dogs had antlers? What if sidewalks were made of cheese?
First sentence of the article.
Same principle here. Vaccines don't completely eliminate the risk of danger from covid, they only reduce it, just like the car regulations.
Some jobs require you to work in close proximity with other people. Others don't.
Since higher vaccination rates protect other people, I'm hopeful that vaccines become as mandatory as possible. That this bothers anti-vaxxers doesn't bother me, because why should it? I'm not more bothered by this than the vaccine requirement to enter public schools for kids.
Your line of reasoning could also be used against seat belt laws or building codes: why have those for public safety if we don't ban alcohol?
edit: also, while I don't support banning alcohol, it wouldn't be a violation of a person's basic rights to ban it. That used to be the law of the land in the US, and even today there are still some dry counties (alcohol cannot be sold).
It's literally not. Have you heard of the Prohibition?
That’s not why but which rights do you think it violated exactly? There still exist dry counties in the US.
I'm sure many people will respond to this saying "they don't need to turn over their full medical history!" but once we turn over a part of it, they will want the next part, and the next, its inevitable. There will always be a safety and security justification.
And what of remote workers? A fully remote employee exposes zero company employees to risk. But they will be mandated to have a vaccine?
Why must we always lose one more right each day?
Edit: Apparently you receive proof of vaccination for the current COVID vaccines in the US. But isn't that still sharing part of your medical history? I have never once been asked a single question about my medical history during a job interview.