I keep seeing multiple news organizations mentioning that employers can in fact require their employees to receive the Rona vaccine. I have seen a post previously mention that it is already being considered by Cisco HR. Cisco is a very progressive company and I can see this being the truth. Any insights?
15 replies (most recent on top)
Hope the vaccine works on the new super mutant from UK. Corona is spreading 70% faster with the new strain which has been spreading for almost 3 months outside UK. Looks like the virus is beating humans now. Hope the vaccine can stop the new variant.
Yes Cisco is very Progressive. Progressive means, "Do as I say not as I do."
All valid points, and well-presented. Your opinion doesn't piss me off at all, but we should be allowed to disagree.
I know loads (30+) of people who've had this, including a 99 year old, and the only person who had a real hard time was a veteran in his mid-40's, but he's good now. I could say that those terrified of something that the vast majority of the population can recover from should "stay the f–" home and let the rest of us crack on, but that's not going to help, and neither is telling people who are quite rightly concerned about being forced to take a brand-new experimental vaccine that they should stay home.
Not an anti-vaxxer by any means, and covid is real and does k–l people, but i am certainly not onboard with being forced by anybody to take this sh1t, and there's a lot of people feel the same.
@2dvy+18qcZG1D you have it backwards. The people with the vaccination (think they) are protected so coming into contact with someone with covid, well they should be protected. The people without the vaccination will not have unknown side-effects. I will go without.
Mandatory vaccination has about just as much chance to mandatory IDs being required when voting.
Not getting the vaccination. Period.
Nothing you can do about it.
Deal with it. I have opinions and rights. Different than yours. I have as much right not to get the vaccine as you do to get it.
If they do this, and just one person gets sick due to enforcement, then Cisco will quite rightly get taken to the cleaners. My body, my choice..isn't that how it goes?
I'd argue just the opposite. If you're forced to return to the office and someone who isn't vaccinated comes in while sick and exposes you to COVID-19, then Cisco should be held responsible for not providing a safe work environment. And that person should be held liable for reckless endangerment.
My body, my choice ends when your choice affects others. Schools have required that children be vaccinated for decades, why should COVID-19 be any different? If you choose to remain unvaccinated, then stay the f— home.
The wearing of seat belts should be a "my body, my choice" situation, but it's not. All 50 states require drivers and passengers wear a seat belt while in a moving vehicle. If you're in an accident that's not your fault and you're hurt, the at-fault party is responsible for your medical care, but if you're not wearing a seat belt, your injuries are greater than if you were wearing a seat belt.
Time to put on my firefighter's flame r—dant outfit, because I'm sure the above opinion will piss a lot of people off.
Post from TheLayoff.com
That's not the case. Companies can mandate that as a condition of coming into the office you have the vaccine. If your job requires you to be in the office and you choose not to get the vaccine, well that's your choice. The joys of being an at-will employee.
Compensation for adverse reactions to vaccine is governed by Federal law and is not an easy bucket of money. From the EEOC: If an employee cannot get vaccinated for COVID-19 because of a disability (K.5) or sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance (K.6), and there is no reasonable accommodation possible, then it would be lawful for the employer to exclude the employee from the workplace. This does not mean the employer may automatically terminate the worker. Employers will need to determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities.
Key would be 'reasonable accommodations'. We've been working from home for 6 months. How would it suddenly be impossible to work from home? Would seen unreasonable.
If they do this, and just one person gets sick due to enforcement, then Cisco will quite rightly get taken to the cleaners. My body, my choice..isn't that how it goes?
How about no... Not interested in taking it.
Don't ask. No means no.
How about mandatory vacation? Fran tells you when and where to take your vacation.
And if you freeloaders would actually TAKE your paid time off (PTO) instead of hording it because you can't go anywhere, they wouldn't have added 2 additional days to the mandatory PTO at year end.
Someone asked in yesterday's check-in about if the 2 additional days was a one-time thing or the new normal moving forward and the answer given was that it was a one-time thing because it
1) gave employees a much needed break from work where they could totally disconnect because everyone is off at the same time and
2) allowed Cisco to save additional $'s by shutting off power to labs and common areas.
Nothing was mentioned about reducing Cisco's liabilities by reducing the overall # of hours of paid time to its employees, which is the real reason that they extended the shutdown by two days. Everyone was already getting 10 straight calendar days to "disconnect", so what's two more going to provide that 10 didn't? 48 hrs of reduced power consumption and 16 hrs of man-hours of liability.
Contingent workers are the ones who got screwed on this deal as they're forced to take another two days of unpaid time off at a time when expenses are normally greater (Christmas gift giving and travel expenses).
If you have a criminal record, Cisco or other large corps wont hire you. Going by the same logic, they can mandate employees to get vaccinated against covid19 or get booted out.
That makes no sense. Having a criminal record and not getting hired in the first place has nothing to do with mandating vaccinations or getting booted out.
However, since Cisco is an "at will" company (in the U.S. anyway), both you and Cisco can decide to end the employment at any time for any reason. So, if they want to mandate that you get vaccinated and you don't, they can terminate you. If they mandate it and you don't want to, you can quit if you want to.
Welcome to the employment world of 'at will' employment.
How about mandatory vacation? Fran tells you when and where to take your vacation.
If you have a criminal record, Cisco or other large corps wont hire you. Going by the same logic, they can mandate employees to get vaccinated against covid19 or get booted out.
The most recent check-in, when asked if Cisco would provide the vaccine, it was stated that the government is dictating the distribution.
So, even for Cisco workers who are deemed "essential" to Cisco's business, they are not considered "essential" workers and will not be at the head of the line in the U.S. That's reserved for healthcare workers. Then elderly and/or front line emergency workers like fire/police. Then those with other health issues that make their risk levels high. Then the rest of us.
yes there was a mail that as prescribed by each countries law they will mandate forced vaccination. in US it will be mandatory