I am torn on this one. On one hand, those who can get vaccinated should get vaccinated. On the other, it is is rather unconstitutional to mandate it esp. for an employer.
Sometimes, and when i say sometimes i mean quite often, people don’t listen, regardless of what the experts say.
And that is because, it’s easier for them to look at conspiracy theories and gossip than to learn the truth, they are not uninformed, they are misinformed, but they have decided to be like that.
Laws are pretty much a coercion mechanism, and in some places doing things that are not prohibited by laws still can get you kicked out of said place, rather than treating them as children, i assume that getting the vaccine is a matter of common sense, and if you don’t want to because you trust conspiracy theories more, then there is nothing wrong with not being allowed to be in some places where common sense is mandatory.
I belong to a marginalized group, and i pretty much can guarantee you that if marginalized people rejected the vaccine, it would be for the same reasons that non marginalized groups would. Ignorance.
Marginalized groups tend not to know their own history, so although i understand your point, i think in this case ignorance acts in the same way for all groups. Don’t get me wrong, taking a more conciliatory approach should be the way to go, but in a case like the coronavirus one, taking short term measures is better than long term measures, it’s literally the difference between life and death.
Please cite the passages from the constitution that deny employers the ability to fire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Protected classes aren’t even a part of the constitution, nor does it apply to this situation.
Capitalism kills, maims, and destroys the only known habitable planet, but when it fires people for endangering others, it’s “unconsitutional.” Throw in “socialism” and “but her emails” and you’ve got yourself an airtight argument.
Sorry if I was unclear on this, but my comment was far broader than just this particular case with CNN.
Also sorry if I forgot while writing my previous comment, that the US constitution does not always exactly lign up with e.g. the constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We have (had) similar discussions here during this pandemic and the constitution thing was brought up even by moderates. So I suppose I did not entirely think that through, given this thread is more specifically about the US.
if an employer can fire you for smoking a joint why not for putting all your coworkers at risk? not saying i think this was a good thing, just that i dont see where the constitution fits in
You would potentially put people at risk smoking that joint (just before or during work, also dependent on the kind of work and whether/how one does commute to it). Constitutionally you may take the joint though, just within reason.
When it comes to vaccines, no-one can force you to take it because an individuals rights to their own body. It is however bl**dy inconvenient (as @jelbana@lemmy.ml already pointed out) that there is so much disinformation turning peoples minds to mush. Thus, it is harder and harder to convince them to do “the right thing” through persuasion. Trying to persuade first is important though, including attempts to hear from them on why they do not wish to take the vaccine. I mean, in this case at CNN one expects that the vast majority of staff know how reasoning/arguments work. Okay, maybe not everyone (like janitors*) but those would more likely be under contract with an external company (giving CNN no rights to make decisions on the employees in question).
I am torn on this one. On one hand, those who can get vaccinated should get vaccinated. On the other, it is is rather unconstitutional to mandate it esp. for an employer.
deleted by creator
Sometimes, and when i say sometimes i mean quite often, people don’t listen, regardless of what the experts say.
And that is because, it’s easier for them to look at conspiracy theories and gossip than to learn the truth, they are not uninformed, they are misinformed, but they have decided to be like that.
deleted by creator
Laws are pretty much a coercion mechanism, and in some places doing things that are not prohibited by laws still can get you kicked out of said place, rather than treating them as children, i assume that getting the vaccine is a matter of common sense, and if you don’t want to because you trust conspiracy theories more, then there is nothing wrong with not being allowed to be in some places where common sense is mandatory.
deleted by creator
I belong to a marginalized group, and i pretty much can guarantee you that if marginalized people rejected the vaccine, it would be for the same reasons that non marginalized groups would. Ignorance.
Marginalized groups tend not to know their own history, so although i understand your point, i think in this case ignorance acts in the same way for all groups. Don’t get me wrong, taking a more conciliatory approach should be the way to go, but in a case like the coronavirus one, taking short term measures is better than long term measures, it’s literally the difference between life and death.
deleted by creator
Please cite the passages from the constitution that deny employers the ability to fire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Protected classes aren’t even a part of the constitution, nor does it apply to this situation.
Capitalism kills, maims, and destroys the only known habitable planet, but when it fires people for endangering others, it’s “unconsitutional.” Throw in “socialism” and “but her emails” and you’ve got yourself an airtight argument.
Sorry if I was unclear on this, but my comment was far broader than just this particular case with CNN. Also sorry if I forgot while writing my previous comment, that the US constitution does not always exactly lign up with e.g. the constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We have (had) similar discussions here during this pandemic and the constitution thing was brought up even by moderates. So I suppose I did not entirely think that through, given this thread is more specifically about the US.
Edit: where I live (Netherlands), Chapter 1 section 11 states:
I do not know whether the US has got anything like that, even though I assumed it and that was perhaps a mistake.
Who’s constitution?
Zambia clearly
if an employer can fire you for smoking a joint why not for putting all your coworkers at risk? not saying i think this was a good thing, just that i dont see where the constitution fits in
You would potentially put people at risk smoking that joint (just before or during work, also dependent on the kind of work and whether/how one does commute to it). Constitutionally you may take the joint though, just within reason. When it comes to vaccines, no-one can force you to take it because an individuals rights to their own body. It is however bl**dy inconvenient (as @jelbana@lemmy.ml already pointed out) that there is so much disinformation turning peoples minds to mush. Thus, it is harder and harder to convince them to do “the right thing” through persuasion. Trying to persuade first is important though, including attempts to hear from them on why they do not wish to take the vaccine. I mean, in this case at CNN one expects that the vast majority of staff know how reasoning/arguments work. Okay, maybe not everyone (like janitors*) but those would more likely be under contract with an external company (giving CNN no rights to make decisions on the employees in question).