Hacker News Reader

Comment by hereforphone | Hacker News Reader

I am saying this as someone who has both shots and generally supports the vaccination.

From what I understand Google is known as a company with a "liberal" culture.

Is demanding employees accept one side of an argument and adhere to it (or face the consequences) contrary to the definition of "liberal"?

That's the problem with Western politics. Liberal vs. conservative is no longer about how permissive we are with ideas and unpopular opinions. It's about what subset of ideas we accept.

View on HN

This policy has nothing to do with opinions and political leanings; it's a physical safety policy for an office. Most offices would also deny you access if you try to get in and stab fellow employees with dirty needles you found by the bus stop.

You could argue the merits of Google not allowing employees the option to permanently work from home, but as far as their offices are concerned this is a very sane requirement for entry given the hazards that currently exist.

Theoretically. If you had an office in Pennsylvania or Minnesota and employed a lot of people that were Amish or Muslim (respectively), and for whatever reason would not accept the shot, would you fire them or allow them to work from home?

> He said there will be "an exceptions process for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other protected reasons."

Religion would be a protected reason, I assume.

Incidentally, Islam allows vaccination.

I have to admit I find this confusing. Elsewhere in these comments, people say that being vaccinated doesn't reduce your risk of being a carrier. So then how does the policy increase physical safety for those who are already vaccinated?

Would you agree with employers doing this with something like AIDS?

Absolutely, in a parallel universe where AIDS is highly transmissible by breathing in the same room as someone else (like COVID-19 is in our universe). Or in an office that's a porn studio, I guess.

Your understanding on "liberal" seems pretty shallow. Liberal support fundamental civil liberty of course, but many of them also tend to support republicanism in some sense, like economics, welfare, corporate policy and public health to establish social equity and justice. You cannot simply draw a clear line between "liberal" and "conservative" and put everyone in one of either bucket; the real world politic is a way more complicated than that.

Who cares about liberal vs conservative? Trying to ensure employee safety is just the responsible thing to do for an employer.

That's definitely the outer surface of the issue, you're right. Some issues have deeper things going on.

It's 'deeper' for the anti-vax community, for everyone else it's just a basic employee/public safety issue.

"Everyone else" is pretty broad and the kind of categorization I wouldn't expect from someone with an open mind

Was there a larger point to using that personal attack?

Vaccination has, sadly, become a partisan issue in the United States.

We can't pretend that a reasonable appeal to public safety will work to convince people of the merits here, when there are so many politicians and entertainers who are successfully using opposition to the vaccine as a wedge issue to further their own selfish agendas.

I feel like it's really only partisan for anti-vaxxers. For others, it's the same as stuff like building codes, or health codes for restaurants: just a common-sense protection.

In the US, "liberal" means left-leaning (compared to the US average).

What argument..?

The workforce is safer if vaccines are mandated in the office. Indisputable.

The data would disagree with you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com