Just saying, if you look at a legal perspective, it is completely allowable. They don't even have to give you a 30-60 day time.
20 replies (most recent on top)
Science isn't left or right.
Yep, figures don't lie but liars can figure, I know, but science is mostly math, and you can always review the science to make up your own mind.
Most of the pandemic deniers here are not doing that. They have a favorite media personality or website that reinforces their belief that they're special and not sheeple.
If 12,000 scientists say COVID is bad, but a handful say no it's good, and you side with the handful, then you don't understand odds.
And that's disturbing considering that most people here work for a bank.
@1mep+1ch2wIc9, I simply do what I expect any critical thinker to do: consider the source/motivation for anybody trying to convince me of something. In other words, Might that source be biased or have its own agenda?
So if masks don't work where did the cold and flu season disappear to then?
So that's MSN citing an article in City Journal, "a public policy magazine and website, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, that covers a wide range of topics, from policing strategy, education reform, and social policy to urban architecture, family culture, and contemporary theories emanating from law schools, charitable foundations, and public health organizations. The magazine began publishing in 1990".
And the author of that article? "Jeffrey H. Anderson served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2017 to 2021, and is co-creator of the Anderson & Hester Rankings, part of college football’s Bowl Championship Series formula from 1998 to 2014."
Just stop it with your idiocy. Or at least stay the fu-k away from me.
I think the point is that if you want to be taken seriously on controversial topics like the this one, using words like “indisputable” comes off as “I don’t want to waste time hearing your point of view, so just shut up if you don’t agree”. If you want to win people over to your way of thinking, taking that approach pretty much guarantees you’ll fail in that effort.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/do-masks-actually-work-the-best-studies-suggest-they-dont/ar-AANfurl
Disputable
People are going to believe what they want to believe. But using the word “indisputable” is a fallacy.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/30/science/wear-mask-covid-particles-ul.html
"But the findings don't support my beliefs, so I'll just disregard them." EYEROLL
Pro-mask/vax here. My thoughts:
- Masks offer me moderate protection but others good protection (the science is indisputable)
- The vaccine DOES NOT keep me from getting COVID, but it decreases my chances of getting seriously ill
- If I don't get seriously ill, I stay out of the hospital/ICU -- meaning that space is available for others (who may need care due to COVID or other illnesses)
- The vaccine doesn't keep me from giving COVID to anyone else (hench the masks), but some studies are finding that viral load in the vaccinated is lower than in the unvaccinated
Takeaways: I wear a mask to protect you. I got vaccinated to protect me.
Every "official" chart that I see shows that my age group has a 99.5% chance of surviving the bug. That's better odds than other diseases and viruses that we just don't seem to think about because we are forced to be focused on "this one". Who knows how many times that I have already been exposed to this kr-p? Also, working "back of the house" in Technology and 100% WFH pre-pandemic, I do not deal with external customers face-to-face.
As the sole breadwinner of my family, I choose not to take an experimental vaccine.
The only reason Wells would make it mandatory is because then they have an easy reason to fire people instead of laying them off with severance. We all know the higher ups could care less if any of us is vaccinated or not.
@aha+1ch2wIc9 It's pretty interesting that Healthcare workers have to be forced to. Get the vaccine or fired. For all the WF employees who believe they are scientists and doctors, maybe pay attention to the fact that not all Healthcare workers are getting the jab.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/nurses-fired-for-not-getting-covid-19-vaccine-explain-their-rationale-202817653.html
I’ve had people on here say they don’t believe me when I say that I got the vaccine but believe in personal choice. Don’t believe me, I don’t care. Truth is that I actually regret getting the vaccine now that I know that I could be carrying it and passing it to someone else. And don’t give me the mask BS. You don’t have to research very hard to find that COVID-19 laughs at masks. They told us that early on, and then changed the narrative. Were they lying then or are lying now? Either way, you only need to lie to me once to make me not take you seriously. Question everything, people. Or don’t. It’s your choice.
Non-applicable case, the unvaccinated aren't discriminating against any protected class.
Why do we need a mandate to force healthcare workers to get the jab? They know the field, right? They were also first in line for availability, and are around COVID patients all the time, and yet many still choose not to get it. Are they all (insert name calling / guilt tripping phrasing here)? Or maybe they choose not to get it for good reason.
@zil+1ch2wIc9 nope. Private entities don't have to give religious/medical expemtions. This is because of baker ruling by supreme court.
Trust me, Wells Fargo will mandate vaccines in the near future. OP is right.
Supreme Court says all employers must allow for religious and moral exemption. I suggest that people that do not believe the jab is in their best interest claim both of those options. There is massive legal risk to the company for not accomodating. People say that there's major liability presented by the unvaccinated, but that's demonstrably false because the unvaccinated are more likely to have symptoms and both groups are equally capable of spreading the disease. So tell me who is more likely to be at work spreading?
AND it’s yet another avenue of staff reduction without severance costs. Kinda genius, actually.
Just some fool ba----g on about vaccinations because it's contentious.
If the company requires the jab as a condition for employment, it won’t be for the reason you think it will be. Since it’s now becoming more evident that the vaccine does not prevent the disease, it only prevents symptoms, and vaccinated people can spread the disease without knowing they are, then how can the reason for a mandate be to stop the spread? No, the main reason will be to avoid lost work hours from people who would have symptoms and be unable to work because they didn’t take the jab. It’s about the bottom line, first and foremost.
Has anyone said this is a real thing? Or is the OP just spreading some FUD.
(Look it up).