COVID-19

[SlickAg]

She poorly meant to convey that people had choice. That is all. Very inarticulate or very horribly edited.
It might seem abusive if it was the case. She absolutely communicated poorly. Big whoop. Trump anyone? All the government comms out there and you are going all in on this report of a longer interview? Hell, she isn't even the Secretary of Labor. You know, there is official written information from DOL and the White House?

No offence meant, your Eminence.

Gas Lighting requires emotional abuse. Do you feel emotional abuse? Can I get someone for you to talk to?

It's not poorly edited or conveyed. That's how she actually feels. Telling American citizens that they can either get vaccinated or shop, work, and educate their children remotely is the very definition of an emotionally abusive relationship between taxer and taxpayer, between state and citizen.

See, it is all about the delivery. Your comment is simplistic and not a true analogy for a few reason. I don't think you believe covid is not contagious. It is proven. Having high cholesterol is not contagious. Franks post re unwed teen mothers also ignored the contagious angle, but was delivered much better. In my opinion you barley got to first base with the Big Mac comment. Franks was a solid stand up triple.

Of course it isn't contagious; everyone loves saying that your right to choice ends at my mouth or nostril (with covid). So why not extrapolate that out to every single medical condition, voluntary or not? Actually, heart disease is the number one killer in America. It also impacts the unaffected in several ways by driving up healthcare costs, unnecessarily filling up hospitals and clinics with people who are needlessly obese, and providing a major drain on resources that could be better allocated to helping the medically underprivileged and underserved. It serves as a conduit for many more diseases and issues as well. So, unwed motherhood is unfortunate, but his post wasn't actually targeting a real health crisis in America. Mine was.

In my opinion, your comments have been swings and misses. Maybe try again in a few innings.

(I love your 180 on this thread by the way. This morning you said you only came here for breaking news, now you're down in the trenches slugging it out. Very journeyman of you, to keep the baseball analogy going.)

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Any of you dudes already peeing in a bottle or take a BA breath test as a condition of private sector employment?

Assuming you're talking about a private business with no government funding, a drug test is part of a contract between that business and its employee. It's not compelled by the federal government.

require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work

Honest question, who is paying for these tests? If it's not government funded, then that's a lot of scratch for a company with 100 people.



Worst case for our fictitious business: 100 employees x $100/test x 52 weeks = Half a mil down the capper.

 

[robav8r]

View attachment 32623
I would have liked to have seen Montana

Literally just spit up a sip of bourbon reading this . . . . . . nice work

 

[Spekkio]

See, it is all about the delivery. Your comment is simplistic and not a true analogy for a few reason. I don't think you believe covid is not contagious. It is proven. Having high cholesterol is not contagious. Franks post re unwed teen mothers also ignored the contagious angle, but was delivered much better. In my opinion you barley got to first base with the Big Mac comment. Franks was a solid stand up triple.

The contagious thing is apples and oranges IF there wasn't a vaccine available. There is one, and anyone who wants it can get it. Therefore, we need not worry about people who want to take that risk.

The argument for requiring vaccines and testing now revolves around healthcare resources, and in this case the analogy holds - if fat people are a disproportionately large consumer of healthcare resources, why aren't we restricting things that fat people can eat?

You know who else consumes a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources? Old people. The majority of per capita healthcare expenditures are during the last 6 months of a person's life. Why aren't we restricting old people's liberties to preserve healtchare resources?

 

[wink]

I’ll try harder.. Give me a couple days (I’m not flying this week) and I bet I can come up with something better…

Swinging for the fence. That's what I like to see.

 

[wink]

The contagious thing is apples and oranges IF there wasn't a vaccine available. There is one, and anyone who wants it can get it. Therefore, we need not worry about people who want to take that risk.

The argument for requiring vaccines and testing now revolves around healthcare resources, and in this case the analogy holds - if fat people are a disproportionately large consumer of healthcare resources, why aren't we restricting things that fat people can eat?

You know who else consumes a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources? Old people. The majority of per capita healthcare expenditures are during the last 6 months of a person's life. Why aren't we restricting old people's liberties to preserve healtchare resources?

You do know I was talking about the humorous nature of the post. "Delivery" was meant to reference delivering a line, or comic timing.

 

[wink]

It's not poorly edited or conveyed. That's how she actually feels. Telling American citizens that they can either get vaccinated or shop, work, and educate their children remotely is the very definition of an emotionally abusive relationship between taxer and taxpayer, between state and citizen.

You can not possible know how she feels.

Of course it isn't contagious; everyone loves saying that your right to choice ends at my mouth or nostril (with covid). So why not extrapolate that out to every single medical condition, voluntary or not? Actually, heart disease is the number one killer in America. It also impacts the unaffected in several ways by driving up healthcare costs, unnecessarily filling up hospitals and clinics with people who are needlessly obese, and providing a major drain on resources that could be better allocated to helping the medically underprivileged and underserved. It serves as a conduit for many more diseases and issues as well. So, unwed motherhood is unfortunate, but his post wasn't actually targeting a real health crisis in America. Mine was.

My comment was not a serious critique of either post. Give it a rest. I was only commenting on the humorous nature of the two analogies. And I did find Frank's more entertaining.

In my opinion, your comments have been swings and misses. Maybe try again in a few innings.

Well OK. Starting to lighten up? This thread is way too repetitive, mostly humorless, unimaginative, and one dimensional. The Montana quote was quite welcomed. The Pope spelling correction was a nice touch. Memes that reinforce what someone has already said is droll.

(I love your 180 on this thread by the way. This morning you said you only came here for breaking news, now you're down in the trenches slugging it out. Very journeyman of you, to keep the baseball analogy going.)

No, I think I said I came here for new information. I have never categorically left a thread. Never blocked anyone. I never meant to imply I wasn't going to come around until braking news was posted. If that were the case, I might never have had a reason to come back. And besides who are you going to blame for moderation abuse unless one is watching the thread.

 

[SlickAg]

And besides who are you going to blame for moderation abuse unless one is watching the thread.

Oh trust me, I could come up with a few names.

I think we're all pretty fluent in sarcasm; it's just difficult to convey online, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[wink]

Assuming you're talking about a private business with no government funding, a drug test is part of a contract between that business and its employee. It's not compelled by the federal government.

I don't think I understand your point. If you are a professional pilot, or a Commercial truck diver, you get tested or lose you job. It is a federal regulation. There is no contract regarding getting a test between employee and business. Union dudes may have negotiated certain clauses to existing contracts which allow for things like pay for the time to test. But no airline or commercial trucking company arranged for drug and alcohol testing on their own before the feds said it must be done. Refuse and you are fired. That was my point. You truly have no choice but to lose your job, unlike the proposed DOL regulation. Keep in mind, I am not arguing for the proposal and certainly can't be sure if it will fly constitutionally. But with the opt out via testing, I bet it will. Did I miss understand your point/question?

Honest question, who is paying for these tests? If it's not government funded, then that's a lot of scratch for a company with 100 people.

A very good question. As you illustrated, it could be very costly to the employer. Although we do not have anywhere near 100 employees, as the dude that handles expenses and HR for Mrs. Wink's business, I am sensitive to your concern as well. I don't know the answer. But aside from the fact that there are already a myriad of regulations that business's have to pay for, like ADA and OSHA compliance, it isn't hard to get free covid testing now. I suspect it is paid for with federal dollars granted to local communities. Hell the vaccine is free all across the country. I guess we will have to wait for the regulation to be written in it's entirety.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I don't think I understand your point. If you are a professional pilot, or a Commercial truck diver, you get tested or lose you job. It is a federal regulation. There is no contract regarding getting a test between employee and business. Union dudes may have negotiated certain clauses to existing contracts which allow for things like pay for the time to test. But no airline or commercial trucking company arranged for drug and alcohol testing on their own before the feds said it must be done. Refuse and you are fired. That was my point. You truly have no choice but to lose your job, unlike the proposed DOL regulation. Keep in mind, I am not arguing for the proposal and certainly can't be sure if it will fly constitutionally. But with the opt out via testing, I bet it will. Did I miss understand your point/question?
A very good question. As you illustrated, it could be very costly to the employer. Although we do not have anywhere near 100 employees, as the dude that handles expenses and HR for Mrs. Wink's business, I am sensitive to your concern as well. I don't know the answer. But aside from the fact that there are already a myriad of regulations that business's have to pay for, like ADA and OSHA compliance, it isn't hard to get free covid testing now. I suspect it is paid for with federal dollars granted to local communities. Hell the vaccine is free all across the country. I guess we will have to wait for the regulation to be written in it's entirety.

Oh well as long as it’s “free” then.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

I don't think I understand your point. If you are a professional pilot, or a Commercial truck diver, you get tested or lose you job. It is a federal regulation. There is no contract regarding getting a test between employee and business. Union dudes may have negotiated certain clauses to existing contracts which allow for things like pay for the time to test. But no airline or commercial trucking company arranged for drug and alcohol testing on their own before the feds said it must be done. Refuse and you are fired. That was my point. You truly have no choice but to lose your job, unlike the proposed DOL regulation. Keep in mind, I am not arguing for the proposal and certainly can't be sure if it will fly constitutionally. But with the opt out via testing, I bet it will. Did I miss understand your point/question?

Pilots fly in government-controlled airspace and truck drivers drive on public roads that are maintained by federal and local governments. Home Depot employees, to use your example, while in working at HD don't fall into that category.

A very good question. As you illustrated, it could be very costly to the employer. Although we do not have anywhere near 100 employees, as the dude that handles expenses and HR for Mrs. Wink's business, I am sensitive to your concern as well. I don't know the answer. But aside from the fact that there are already a myriad of regulations that business's have to pay for, like ADA and OSHA compliance, it isn't hard to get free covid testing now. I suspect it is paid for with federal dollars granted to local communities. Hell the vaccine is free all across the country. I guess we will have to wait for the regulation to be written in it's entirety.

If there's no fiscal burden placed on the employer or employees I see no issue with mandating vaccines or negative tests temporarily.

 

[wink]

Pilots fly in government-controlled airspace and truck drivers drive on public roads that are maintained by federal and local governments. Home Depot employees, to use your example, while in working at HD don't fall into that category.

I really do not think where an employee works has any bearing on this. I think it is a huge stretch. As a matter of fact, because I was flying professionally at the time, the argument was public safety and they did not have to consider roads or airspace. The legal test is strict scrutiny. There are levels of that. The highest is Compelling Interest. From The First Amendment Encyclopedia. " Regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights are examples of compelling governmental interests." As I remember it, that was the way it was.

Just for fun, Home Depot employees drive to work on public roads and rail roads like the BNSF roll on private tracks on right of way they or other rail roads own. But I don't think it matters at all. It is all about the public interest. Just think about the reach of the government into our private lives. They can do it if they meet certain legal requirements. Eminent domain anyone?

 

[wink]

Honest question, who is paying for these tests? If it's not government funded, then that's a lot of scratch for a company with 100 people.

From an HR news letter sent to me.

The Plan indicates that the administration will increase the amount of COVID-19 testing by ramping up production of testing products, offering at-home rapid COVID-19 tests at cost through certain retailers, and expanding free testing at retail pharmacy sites, among other things.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

I really do not think where an employee works has any bearing on this. I think it is a huge stretch. As a matter of fact, because I was flying professionally at the time, the argument was public safety and they did not have to consider roads or airspace. The legal test is strict scrutiny. There are levels of that. The highest is Compelling Interest. From The First Amendment Encyclopedia. " Regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights are examples of compelling governmental interests." As I remember it, that was the way it was.

Just for fun, Home Depot employees drive to work on public roads and rail roads like the BNSF roll on private tracks on right of way they or other rail roads own. But I don't think it matters at all. It is all about the public interest. Just think about the reach of the government into our private lives. They can do it if they meet certain legal requirements. Eminent domain anyone?

It's because they're in public airspace/roads that public safety is a potential issue. Within the confines of a private business, public safety does not apply. People can choose to not patronize that business. Stated another way there is no "compelling government interest".

 

[wink]

It's because they're in public airspace/roads that public safety is a potential issue. Within the confines of a private business, public safety does not apply. People can choose to not patronize that business. Stated another way there is no "compelling government interest".

Do me a favor follow this from a legal/constitutional view point. I am sure you will be convinced you are barking up the wrong tree. Your cocktail party banter is at stake.