XCR Forum banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Interesting read....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Saw this posted on another site…Carhartt mandating jabs even after SCOTUS ruling…letter looks legit from just a bit of searching! Don’t think this email box will last long now that it’s out to the public!

Font Number Document Screenshot Parallel



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Carhartt can require their employees to do whatever they want as a condition of employment. People can choose to leave and look for another job. Customers can choose not to purchase Carhartt products.

As long as the government isn't forcing Carhartt to mandate vaccination, then everyone is doing things voluntarily, and I think that's fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Carhartt can require their employees to do whatever they want as a condition of employment. People can choose to leave and look for another job. Customers can choose not to purchase Carhartt products.

As long as the government isn't forcing Carhartt to mandate vaccination, then everyone is doing things voluntarily, and I think that
Yep! And not another penny of mine will pad their pockets for that decision…just like Horandy. Hope the employees that leave find a better opportunity and company that appreciates and respects their individual liberties more. So much for their union standing up for them (that is what most “claim” to do). 😂 The whole “for safety” thing is such a weak argument and joke at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
So much for their union standing up for them (that is what most “claim” to do). 😂 The whole “for safety” thing is such a weak argument and joke at this point.
Unions exist to line the pockets of the union leadership. That's what they're for, and that's all they do. And they do it at the expense of everyone else (the public and the union membership).

And yes. 'For Safety!' and 'For Public Health!' are the new rallying cries of centralized authoritarianism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Unions exist to line the pockets of the union leadership. That's what they're for, and that's all they do. And they do it at the expense of everyone else (the public and the union membership).

And yes. 'For Safety!' and 'For Public Health!' are the new rallying cries of centralized authoritarianism.
Sorry, yeah was being sarcastic with the union comment. Just thought that was a bit amusing that they stuck that in their mandate letter to the employees. Unions are a business, that aren’t really in business for the people they represent!

Yes, that’s a generalization…I’m sure there are a few good ones around. 🤔
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Carhartt can require their employees to do whatever they want as a condition of employment. People can choose to leave and look for another job. Customers can choose not to purchase Carhartt products.

As long as the government isn't forcing Carhartt to mandate vaccination, then everyone is doing things voluntarily, and I think that's fine.
Provided their state doesn't have a law against it....some do specifically about vaccinations now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Provided their state doesn't have a law against it....some do specifically about vaccinations now.
I'm opposed to such laws. I really do think that an employer can require whatever they want as a condition of employment. That's true even where I am opposed to government mandating or prohibiting something. For example, I am fine with employers requiring drug testing, even though I think virtually all recreational drugs ought to be legalized.

On the flip side, we need to decouple our economy from the lifelong career model that's encouraged by many policies (tying healthcare to employment since WWII, for example) to allow more flexibility, so that people can more easily leave an employer who they don't want to work for anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
I'm opposed to such laws. I really do think that an employer can require whatever they want as a condition of employment. That's true even where I am opposed to government mandating or prohibiting something. For example, I am fine with employers requiring drug testing, even though I think virtually all recreational drugs ought to be legalized.

On the flip side, we need to decouple our economy from the lifelong career model that's encouraged by many policies (tying healthcare to employment since WWII, for example) to allow more flexibility, so that people can more easily leave an employer who they don't want to work for anymore.
And I see where you're coming from there though I differentiate that my employer shouldn't be able to change the conditions of my employment by requiring I take an EUA (Cominarty isn't available in the US yet...and the J&J as well as Moderna still dont' have FDA approval) vaccine. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/fda-covid-19-vaccine-approval-updates

That said, due to the highly politicized nature of this pandemic, I don't trust any entity representing government to be forthright or honest about the safety of such rushed drugs...so even if "approved", if it was a condition of my employment, I'd likely find a new job.

Agree that health insurance (not the same as health care) should NOT be tied to employment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
And I see where you're coming from there though I differentiate that my employer shouldn't be able to change the conditions of my employment ...
Without going specifically to the vaccination issue;

We see employers changing conditions of employment all the time. Someone might be hired to sweep floors, but then be moved to emptying trash cans, for example. Or be hired to provide counter service, and be moved to overseeing other counter service employees.

If my employer and I mutually agree to the changes, then we go forward. If I don't agree, I leave and seek other employment.


The problem is the general disparity of power in the situation, which is caused by labor market inelasticity. It is substantially difficult to change jobs, with much greater 'transaction costs' than almost any other market. The solution here is to reduce the friction involved in changing jobs, which is substantial and often government imposed (retirement plans tied to employment and healthcare plans tied to employment are two examples of this).

Another cause of friction and inelasticity in the labor market is the tendency of Americans to live paycheck to paycheck, at least partially because saving is disincentivized by a continuously inflationary monetary regime (since the beginning of the 20th century). Moving toward a neutral (or better, a naturally occurring deflationary) monetary system would shift the incentives in a much healthier direction for individuals (and for society in the long term).

Workers are often caught between interest groups that have powerful lobbying presences. The employers will want the worker to stay employed at the minimum possible compensation, naturally, but labor unions also want the worker to remain employed as a (union member) wage worker, paying dues to the union leadership (who can collect CEO level pay checks from the union). The unions often lobby for laws tying workers more tightly to their employers. This generally takes the form of including more and more of the worker’s quality of life improvements to their continued employment at the unionized shop, under the guise of making the employer ‘give more’ to the employee. This makes the employees even more dependent on their employers. Such a system is greatly detrimental to the worker and their power relative to their employer, but greatly benefits the highly paid union leadership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
Without going specifically to the vaccination issue;

But the EUA and the vaccines are the entire crux of my argument. Otherwise, on all your other points, we agree: Employers should have the right to set the rules and we as employees have the right to leave if we find them objectionable....except when it comes to forcing someone to take an experimental 'vaccine' under the guise of 'protecting others in the workplace' when those vaccines neither stop the spread of the virus, nor diminish the viral loads between vaxxed and unvaxxed.

That part makes absolutely no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willpgn

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
But the EUA and the vaccines are the entire crux of my argument. Otherwise, on all your other points, we agree: Employers should have the right to set the rules and we as employees have the right to leave if we find them objectionable....except when it comes to forcing someone to take an experimental 'vaccine' under the guise of 'protecting others in the workplace' when those vaccines neither stop the spread of the virus, nor diminish the viral loads between vaxxed and unvaxxed.

That part makes absolutely no sense.
Requiring vaccines makes no sense as a public health requirement. That's an exercise of government force. An employer requiring any particular thing isn't an exercise of government force. I'm a lot more comfortable with a private party (employer) doing things than I am with a (public) government employer doing them (with regards to their employees), or a public agency requiring members of the public to do them.

I can't say whether it makes sense for a particular employer to impose a requirement (any requirement) because they are running their business--I'm not. Having the government step in and say what an employer can or cannot require as a part of employment imposes a 'one size fits all' centralized mandate. Maybe there is a business, which is not my business and which I do not understand, where requiring employees to do something I'd find nonsensical actually makes perfect sense (example, requiring them to dress up as princesses, which actually makes perfect sense within the DisneyWorld business/employment model). I can't say that the employer shouldn't be able to require it because I am not running their business. In a larger sense, I have no right to tell someone else how to conduct their business because they are the one taking the risks involved with starting and operating it. I have no skin in their game, and I have no right to tell them what to do.

In a long term societal sense, we ought to have a variety of different answers and responses on every issue. Devolving things (especially contentious issues) to the lowest possible level helps this to happen. Creating a centralized 'you can't get vaccinated' (which was the initial response of the federal government, by the way) followed by a centralized 'now you must get vaccinated' violates this basic principle. It's not terribly relevant which side of the do/don't divide the government force is exercised on behalf of--it's the exercise of that force that I object to. We can see the flip side of this debate on the question of hydroxychloroquine (and to a lesser extent azithromycin), where the government is actively working to prevent people from using a medication that they wish to take.

I don't think 'you can't use hydroxychloroquine' is good public policy. But it's possible that it is good business sense. I have had multiple courses of hydroxychloroquine for either covid infection or exposure, and my experience has been that my eyesight is substantially degraded when I am using it. That's worth it to me, but I could definitely see an educated employer saying that bus drivers (random example I just made up) could not use this medication because it might reduce their ability to perform their work duties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
An employer requiring any particular thing isn't an exercise of government force.

Creating a centralized 'you can't get vaccinated' (which was the initial response of the federal government, by the way) followed by a centralized 'now you must get vaccinated' violates this basic principle. It's not terribly relevant which side of the do/don't divide the government force is exercised on behalf of--it's the exercise of that force that I object to.
It is government force when the government is the one who mandates or even guides the healthcare policy for these businesses.

So if my company wanted to have us work 16 hour shifts and said we need you to take amphetamines to keep you working hard, I can't complain to my government that they are forcing me to comply with something that very well could affect my long term health? Sorry, we disagree here. It's no different than child labor laws or limits to working hours in a day. My guess is you'll disagree those were necessary, but it's no different than saying the mining industry should also be regulated via the EPA so they don't just spew toxic chemicals into rivers. Unfortunately, some limited government is necessary...as much as I wish it weren't so.

That's a mischaracterization. It's not that you can't be vaccinated...it's that you can't be FORCED to be vaccinated. I would argue it's VERY relevant whether or not a person has a choice over their own health and body versus earning a living.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
That's a mischaracterization. It's not that you can't be vaccinated...it's that you can't be FORCED to be vaccinated. I would argue it's VERY relevant whether or not a person has a choice over their own health and body versus earning a living.
I wasn't trying to characterize your position on vaccines. I was referring to the government action with regard to them. There were effective vaccines within two months of Covid kicking off, but government regulators made people who wanted to use those vaccines wait for almost a year before they were allowed to do so. That seems crazy to me. People should be allowed to take the medicines they choose, without the interference of government regulators. They should also be free to choose not to take medicines they don't want to take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
So if my company wanted to have us work 16 hour shifts and said we need you to take amphetamines to keep you working hard, I can't complain to my government that they are forcing me to comply with something that very well could affect my long term health?
You have correctly extrapolated my position. I do not believe the government ought to have any authority to interfere in the private relationship between you and your employer. If your employer had such a policy, I would support private action including you quitting, but also including people publicizing the policy, customers boycotting the company, etc.


Sorry, we disagree here. It's no different than child labor laws or limits to working hours in a day.
That's ok. We are all free to disagree. I don't think that government imposed limits on the workday are either necessary or positive. I think that child labor regulations may be necessary in some circumstances, because children are not adults, and do not have the same legal rights and freedoms as adults.


...it's no different than saying the mining industry should also be regulated via the EPA so they don't just spew toxic chemicals into rivers.
I honestly think that the EPA has resulted in a dirtier, more polluted environment than we would have without it. It often shields polluters from tort suits because firms that comply with the (usually designed by them through their lobbyists) EPA rules receive liability caps from the government in return. It's not a good system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
It is government force when the government is the one who mandates or even guides the healthcare policy for these businesses.
Yes. It is. And as such it should not be allowed. Government should not be requiring businesses to comply with any specific healthcare policies, nor should they be bludgeoning business in other ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
I honestly think that the EPA has resulted in a dirtier, more polluted environment than we would have without it. It often shields polluters from tort suits because firms that comply with the (usually designed by them through their lobbyists) EPA rules receive liability caps from the government in return. It's not a good system.
From a historical perspective, I don't think you can make that argument considering the condition of our rivers and air as we industrialized ever more heavily in the previous century. Could EPA do better? Hell yes they could. Look no further than their potentially purposeful poisoning of the Animas river a few years back as one example of an agency gone rogue....or the fiasco over imported wood and Gibson guitar...but that's not to say there shouldn't be regulation to protect the environment and our quality of life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
From a historical perspective, I don't think you can make that argument considering the condition of our rivers and air as we industrialized ever more heavily in the previous century.
That's a logical fallacy,

You're comparing the world in the past and the world in the present, and saying 'the world in the present is better off, and the world in the present has the EPA, so the EPA must have made the world better off.'

America today is definitely better off than America before the New Deal. Does that mean the New Deal made us better off?

To honestly consider the question, you should consider the world now, with or without the factor you want to consider (EPA, New Deal, etc). Since we do not have a counterexample, that's very difficult. Any time you compare 'how was the world in the past' to 'how is the world now' it's likely you'll find that we are better off in the present. That DOES NOT mean that everything done in the past 100 years is positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
That's a logical fallacy,

You're comparing the world in the past and the world in the present, and saying 'the world in the present is better off, and the world in the present has the EPA, so the EPA must have made the world better off.'

America today is definitely better off than America before the New Deal. Does that mean the New Deal made us better off?

To honestly consider the question, you should consider the world now, with or without the factor you want to consider (EPA, New Deal, etc). Since we do not have a counterexample, that's very difficult. Any time you compare 'how was the world in the past' to 'how is the world now' it's likely you'll find that we are better off in the present. That DOES NOT mean that everything done in the past 100 years is positive.

No, it's not a logical fallacy. A more accomplished guy than either of us put it succinctly:

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I implied the EPA regulations improved air and water quality in the USA. Historically speaking, they did, but I freely admit the amount to which they contributed might be difficult to gauge but to claim they didn't have a meaningful impact is disregarding the history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
No, it's not a logical fallacy. A more accomplished guy than either of us put it succinctly:

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I implied the EPA regulations improved air and water quality in the USA. Historically speaking, they did, but I freely admit the amount to which they contributed might be difficult to gauge but to claim they didn't have a meaningful impact is disregarding the history.
My counterargument is that the creation of the EPA has led to more environmental damage than we would have seen if it had never been created.

Unfortunately, there is no way to test that.


If the EPA has improved environmental quality, then the next question ought to be 'was there a way to improve it more' or 'was there a way to achieve such improvements through an alternate arrangement' or 'would free market solutions and traditional tort law (allowing those damaged to sue the polluters) have done a better job.'

Capping tort recovery for environmental pollution/accidents is a key part of how environmental regulation works. The liability of major corporations (who employ big time lobbyists) is effectively shifted to the taxpayers, rather than being applied to the corporations. This incentivizes the corporations to continue with risky or polluting behaviors, because they are reaping larger benefits than the costs. Protecting big polluters from the consequences of their actions seems counterproductive to me. It's a classic case of regulatory capture, whereby the regulated industry effectively shapes the regulation to benefit itself.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top