Hacker News Reader

Comment by nathanaldensr | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> failing to provide proof of vaccination, despite being a 100% remote worker

That seems weird. Are you only incidentally remote, or is your position officially a remote one? As in, if the company reverted "back to normal", would you still be remote without any close interactions with people on behalf of the company? If so, this demanding proof of vaccination doesn't make sense, but if not, then presumably it's hindering their ability to have you come back to the office like they would've wanted outside of the pandemic.

It's not weird at all. It's completely commonplace, whether or not you agree with it.

When I said "weird" I meant the logic was weird (read: illogical, unreasonable, etc.). I wasn't trying to claim anything about whether it was common or unusual.

Note: employer vaccine mandates aren't only about workplace safety. They're also about motivating people to get vaccinated.

Sure, but unless the employer has a legitimate workplace/safety concern, why would that be any of the employer's business?

Imagine if you had to submit proof to your employer that you have a healthy, well-balanced diet according to the FDA.

Some companies have required it historically.

One justification I’ve heard used in the past for similar types of things (requirements for smoking or not smoking or whatever) was health insurance premiums, which in the US are often paid partially or fully by the employer.

I certainly wouldn't buy that pretext for COVID-19 vaccination. Would the company let you cover health insurance yourself and stay unvaccinated?

And required what exactly? Healthy diet or vaccination for remote-only workers, because of higher health insurance premiums? IIUC, it's outright illegal for that to affect health insurance. Smoking seems to be literally the only exception for health insurance [1]:

> the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2014, prevents insurers from pricing plans according to health – with one exception: smoking status.

[1] https://www.krqe.com/health/can-health-insurance-companies-c...

My employer requires flu shots for certain roles, and has for many years. Never a problem till a political party made dewormers an alternative to a vaccine.

They fired a few dozen people. Good news imo, they lost their ability to think.

> certain roles

Were they remote-only roles? Did those roles involve in-person interaction with others?

It’s a mix. In this case there are no roles where a person is fully remote and would never interact with other humans in person in a business context. It’a never been a problem until recently.

I have colleagues in hospitals struggling with with similar problems. In one case, a group of medical professionals in a neonatal ICU refused covid and flu vaccines. Given the nature of the people whose care they are entrusted with, that’s unconscionable.

> In this case there are no roles where a person is fully remote and would never interact with other humans in person in a business context

That's my entire point though. It depends on the role, like I've said in my comments. You've been agreeing with me this whole time.

That isn't really the function of an employer. And that's fine, lots of things aren't done at work, for example talking about politics and religion.

Mine makes me wear clothes on the video conferences, despite nobody being able to see below my chest. I mean if they asked me to go into the office, I've not told them I wouldn't consider trousers.

sounds like no one has forced you to do anything, sounds like you made a choice. Whether it is ok for them to have criteria around employment based on vaccines is a valid concern, especially for a remote worker, but this isn't about being forced, this is about whether it is ok for them to choose whether to employ/do business with you based on your choices around vaccines. I think if there is any reasonable expectation you'd interact with other people, their clients or other employees, even if irregular, then yeah, it would be reasonable. But if you are 100% remote, with no expectation of interaction with anyone, then it doesn't sound reasonable.

Your arguments are literally the same as those anti-work people, just replace “getting a vaccine” with “getting a job”

Whether or not I agree with either of those positions is neither here nor there, but both of them tend to elicit a considerable degree of eye roiling from the general population.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

And don’t snowflake. Being a white male isn’t a bad gig, all things considered.

From the first paragraph: "... upheld the authority of states..."

This decision was about states, not private companies.

But doesn’t the government decide what companies can do?

Zoom meetings! Friend got put on leave for repeatedly wearing tank tops and raggedy shirts. They are not interacting physically with any one. This is a personal issue as you stated. It isn’t being left at the door. Same with when they accidentally were shown to be in boxers when they got up a bit too high to grab something in a zoom meeting. Nothing was revealed. Still. Not left at the door”.

Interestingly, I’ve been told this sort of behavior never would have flown in corporate America ever. In fact it was stricter.

> am not ashamed of

No normal person thinks or says you should be

> I am somehow lesser than others

No normal person thinks so

Reply on news.ycombinator.com