• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Any HR people on the forum who can weigh in on job loss and Vax?

Atocha

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
362
Reaction score
819
You have free will.
Not when they are using coercion, holding your job and family over your head. That is not free will or choice.

Someone told me they felt like they were RAPED because they were forced to do this. I am not a woman but I would have to agree with that sentiment and statement. If you are forced to do something against your will, that is not free will...
 

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
41,404
Not when they are using coercion, holding your job and family over your head. That is not free will or choice.
If people lived simpler. Quit going into debt for houses they can't afford, cars they can't afford, vacations & use credit cards there is a freedom in being debt free. One of them is giving you the choice to walk away. Maybe not forever but if you got enough to tighten the belt & weather out 6 months or a year you are not being coerced your making a choice to live beyond your means.

Most of us here are fortunate & have little to no debt & hedged with both fiat, metal & other means to generate income to survive.

The Bible specifically says that the “love” of money is evil. If we put money above God in any way, our relationship with money is unhealthy. ... In fact, the Bible never states that you should not use debt. It does state however many times, that you should use extreme caution when doing so.

This is not a predicament God wants his children to be in. This is why it is really important to be financially responsible to plan your purchases and endeavors. God really does want the best for us.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan doth oft lose both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.” Hamlet. ... In this line from Hamlet, Polonius gives his son Laertes advice on managing money. He starts off by telling him never to lend or borrow money from friends.
 

EchelonPL

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
62
Reaction score
65
Per my understanding, these companies requiring the jab are saying they are doing so due to the bidet's executive order and osha regs. Is that correct?
Correct. The company (I can’t name it) is requiring the vaccine in part due to the federal mandate for all federal contractors to be vaccinated. They spout CDC guidance and state the vaccine is FDA approved. For one month they did not mention how to submit for an exemption or accommodation. The wording was along the lines of thou shall take the vaccine or your employment will be terminated and you will not get unemployment benefits.
Honestly I think the HR and program mgmt are using the vaccine circumstance as a ploy to accelerate the reduction in the US work force and onboard more foreign engineers.
 

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
41,404
Correct. The company (I can’t name it) is requiring the vaccine in part due to the federal mandate for all federal contractors to be vaccinated. They spout CDC guidance and state the vaccine is FDA approved. For one month they did not mention how to submit for an exemption or accommodation. The wording was along the lines of thou shall take the vaccine or your employment will be terminated and you will not get unemployment benefits.
Honestly I think the HR and program mgmt are using the vaccine circumstance as a ploy to accelerate the reduction in the US work force and onboard more foreign engineers.
Make them produce the laws and OSHA regs in writing. Use their legal teat against them.
 

Scorpio

для продажи слегка подержанный
Founding Member
Board Elder
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,326
Reaction score
54,162
ploy to accelerate the reduction in the US work force and onboard more foreign engineers.

been wondering about this in the aggregate,

po po or fire,
pilots, attendants
.gov employees
drs, nurses
and on it goes

while we can speak to various areas, how does it play overall?
where is the gain when one knowingly can assume there will be a large tap out?

then to say, some of these articles state terminated and not qualified for unemployment,
so are the states going to jump in and deny unemployment? If so, then they are stating you were fired with cause or quit.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
8,213
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Here is what I do not get and it deals with certification of health. Now certification of health was not part of any peoples employment, documents or otherwise unless you are in the suck or military: yep ur body is not ur own after you do the swear.

So, if, certification of health is the new norm then everyone is already grandfathered in, in having already accepted the old way of doing things. After all.....I got into a big argument with a proprietor and he said it was 'the law' and I had to wear a mask. I looked him right in the face when I asked him 'Where in the Oregon Revised Statutes is it then?' Then I purchased the saw mix and out the door I went.

Just because your Governor's panties are on fire does not make it your crisis, nor mine. Yep, I'll fight this thing all the way to the grave and you should also because freedom is at risk of being turned over to the mindless masses.
 

D-FENZ

Gold Chaser
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
3,679
Reaction score
9,796
Having to file an exemption of any sort, religious or otherwise is just playing their game. Even a fake cert is still playing their game. The most effective and honorable way is to just tell them to go fly a kite.

Do you know anyone who starved to death? Me either.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,646
Reaction score
16,244
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Per my understanding, these companies requiring the jab are saying they are doing so due to the bidet's executive order and osha regs. Is that correct?
Correct. The company (I can’t name it) is requiring the vaccine in part due to the federal mandate for all federal contractors to be vaccinated. They spout CDC guidance and state the vaccine is FDA approved. For one month they did not mention how to submit for an exemption or accommodation. The wording was along the lines of thou shall take the vaccine or your employment will be terminated and you will not get unemployment benefits.
Honestly I think the HR and program mgmt are using the vaccine circumstance as a ploy to accelerate the reduction in the US work force and onboard more foreign engineers.
Make them produce the laws and OSHA regs in writing. Use their legal teat against them.
That's where I was headed when I asked the question.
.....and if they actually say it's because of the bidet's "rulz" and those rulz don't yet exist, it should be lawsuit time for wrongful termination.




then to say, some of these articles state terminated and not qualified for unemployment,
so are the states going to jump in and deny unemployment? If so, then they are stating you were fired with cause or quit.
That's right. If it is considered as simply being an employers requirement for employment in a Right to work State, then they want to say that it's a voluntary quit and no UI.
.....but imo if the employer says they are only doing it because .gov is making them take that course of action and that they have no choice but to end your employment due to your noncompliance, but no actual rule or law that requires them to gain your compliance, it shouldn't be legal to treat it as a voluntary quit.

It'd be like a cop ticketing or arresting you for a crime that ain't actually on the books.
 

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
41,404
That's where I was headed when I asked the question.
.....and if they actually say it's because of the bidet's "rulz" and those rulz don't yet exist, it should be lawsuit time for wrongful termination.






That's right. If it is considered as simply being an employers requirement for employment in a Right to work State, then they want to say that it's a voluntary quit and no UI.
.....but imo if the employer says they are only doing it because .gov is making them take that course of action and that they have no choice but to end your employment due to your noncompliance, but no actual rule or law that requires them to gain your compliance, it shouldn't be legal to treat it as a voluntary quit.

It'd be like a cop ticketing or arresting you for a crime that ain't actually on the books.
That circular logic yet no one is to blame or be responsible.

For them the end justifies any means to get them where they want to be.

Face it. 500 million is all they want alive. Read that as they want 7.3 billion to die & not reproduce. To make it simpler they want us dead. Don't overthink it. Your enemy has spoken. How will we react is the question.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
8,213
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
It'd be like a cop ticketing or arresting you for a crime that ain't actually on the books.
Um? this actually happened to a friend: class A and a class B felonies, and then they din't prosecute.
That's right. If it is considered as simply being an employers requirement for employment in a Right to work State, then they want to say that it's a voluntary quit and no UI.
This is where you are grandfathered in. You are in a state of existing employment and then a third party interloper, (STATE,) enters the relationship and requires, via the business license, that you take a manufactured substance into your body. Now here is where the STATE does not stand: There is nothing in the/a STATE/'s revised statutes that tells, shows, or makes it a law on how to be employed; just not there so the STATE cannot tell the 'people' what to do.

But, because your employer aka "A CORPORATION' has accepted a 'business license' from a STATE then it the 'CORPORATION' can be managed....from the grantor the grantee receives. Yet, the CORPORATON you work for grants you nothing, owes you nothing and this is because you cannot get this/the/a CORPORATION to sit at the dinner table with you. Now, this CORPORATION and you have a 'preexisting' relationship that did not involve putting manufactured substances into your body, what has changed? How can you have a voluntary 'quit' on something you did not know about before you were employed?*
hummm? Let me put it this way so at least I can understand myself even. So here we are at work, and the dress at work is casual, K? So, one year the fiction known as the STATE decrees an emergency and that all PERSONS must wear a suit and tie. And, if you do not have a suit and tie the STATE will give you one. But, not everyone is wearing a suit and tie So, the STATE without law issues new regulations through its OSHA agency that everyone not wearing a suit and tie should be?????Should be?????Should be voluntary quit? Or is the correct definition really "TERMINATED?" And, even if you receive a paper to signature or autograph, you now hold the power in your hands.

The power is that what you are holding has terms in it which means it is an instrument of negotiation. Negotiations require time and if your instrument has your writing stating "Rejected "terms not acceptable," along with your signature/autograph, and dated then you my friend have entered into a renegotiation of work conditions as they apply to you, personably. It is here where you bend the CORPORATION to your will. If you are not seeing it then look at it this way.....

The preexisting conditions of employment were to keep all sexual body parts covered. Sure, a suit and tie are covering all sexual body parts BUT, because you have been employed without having to wear a suit and tie there is no reason for you to have to change the way you cover those body parts. Now, because there is no law...because the Congress has not made a law requiring the people to wear suits and ties....because there is no law requiring you to wear a suit and tie then you can only be in negotiation with a CORPORATION as regulations from anything without law to back it up is harm and injury. By doing the 'rejected terms not acceptable' you have moved the CORPORATION to have to explain how it is in the right....and that my friend just cannot be done. AND, and even if it is an at will state "you" have already moved the dictum from its position into a negotiating position of which you get to insert your terms, so it's terms or tort baby; TERMS OR TORT.
 

EchelonPL

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
62
Reaction score
65
UPDATE: The large Aerospace firm granted me my religious exemption and approved my reasonable accommodation. It was a relief to hear and the burden has fallen off my shoulders. Thank you for the internet support. That's you; the real people on the other side of the screen who share thoughts and give ideas. PS. thanks to individuals who were kind and PM'd me too.
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
7,458
Reaction score
12,043
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
Um? this actually happened to a friend: class A and a class B felonies, and then they din't prosecute.

This is where you are grandfathered in. You are in a state of existing employment and then a third party interloper, (STATE,) enters the relationship and requires, via the business license, that you take a manufactured substance into your body. Now here is where the STATE does not stand: There is nothing in the/a STATE/'s revised statutes that tells, shows, or makes it a law on how to be employed; just not there so the STATE cannot tell the 'people' what to do.

But, because your employer aka "A CORPORATION' has accepted a 'business license' from a STATE then it the 'CORPORATION' can be managed....from the grantor the grantee receives. Yet, the CORPORATON you work for grants you nothing, owes you nothing and this is because you cannot get this/the/a CORPORATION to sit at the dinner table with you. Now, this CORPORATION and you have a 'preexisting' relationship that did not involve putting manufactured substances into your body, what has changed? How can you have a voluntary 'quit' on something you did not know about before you were employed?*
hummm? Let me put it this way so at least I can understand myself even. So here we are at work, and the dress at work is casual, K? So, one year the fiction known as the STATE decrees an emergency and that all PERSONS must wear a suit and tie. And, if you do not have a suit and tie the STATE will give you one. But, not everyone is wearing a suit and tie So, the STATE without law issues new regulations through its OSHA agency that everyone not wearing a suit and tie should be?????Should be?????Should be voluntary quit? Or is the correct definition really "TERMINATED?" And, even if you receive a paper to signature or autograph, you now hold the power in your hands.

The power is that what you are holding has terms in it which means it is an instrument of negotiation. Negotiations require time and if your instrument has your writing stating "Rejected "terms not acceptable," along with your signature/autograph, and dated then you my friend have entered into a renegotiation of work conditions as they apply to you, personably. It is here where you bend the CORPORATION to your will. If you are not seeing it then look at it this way.....

The preexisting conditions of employment were to keep all sexual body parts covered. Sure, a suit and tie are covering all sexual body parts BUT, because you have been employed without having to wear a suit and tie there is no reason for you to have to change the way you cover those body parts. Now, because there is no law...because the Congress has not made a law requiring the people to wear suits and ties....because there is no law requiring you to wear a suit and tie then you can only be in negotiation with a CORPORATION as regulations from anything without law to back it up is harm and injury. By doing the 'rejected terms not acceptable' you have moved the CORPORATION to have to explain how it is in the right....and that my friend just cannot be done. AND, and even if it is an at will state "you" have already moved the dictum from its position into a negotiating position of which you get to insert your terms, so it's terms or tort baby; TERMS OR TORT.
So, you assert that removing corporate status from law, would solve all this?

Ever heard of the Inquisition?

Ever heard of Bills of Attainder?

Ever heard of the guillotine? Or, the Halifax Gibbet?

Corporate structure is not the cause. Demented people, in powerful positions that cannot be challenged, are the problem.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
38,190
Reaction score
61,593
Location
Qmerica
UPDATE: The large Aerospace firm granted me my religious exemption and approved my reasonable accommodation. It was a relief to hear and the burden has fallen off my shoulders. Thank you for the internet support. That's you; the real people on the other side of the screen who share thoughts and give ideas. PS. thanks to individuals who were kind and PM'd me too.
Sounds like a neato job you have. Is it one of those "cant talk about it" kinda jobs?
 

Stop Making Cents

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
838
Reaction score
1,203
Location
Amongst the savages
THe vaxx requirement seems like an easy way for corporations to get rid of unwanted staff. If they want to keep you, they approve your exemption request. If not, bye bye. Easy peasy. No hassle of tracking evaluations, creating a 'file', creating improvement plans or worrying about 'scrimination suits. It's a windfall for these evil corporations.