Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,197
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    KTBFFH1905
    Newest Member
    KTBFFH1905
    Joined

Met Summer Banter


HoarfrostHubb
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was in a conference call from 2-3 in a small collaboration room since we have open concept office. The email telling us to mask back up came in at 2:30. I got physically ill somewhat. 
By the time I got off my call, my histo tech had gone down to the lab and brought up a box of surgical masks. All my folks were sitting at their desks with their mask down around their chin. De ju vue from May. That’s what we did before. Pull the thing down somewhat and when we got up to move around we pulled it back up. 
There is no distancing. The conference rooms are full capacity. We can remove the masks in the lunch room when we are all eating together at the same table. But as soon as we go back to our desk or 3 of us in a conference room taking business, it’s mask up. Management is supposed to be made up of smart people, yet this is what we do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

I was in a conference call from 2-3 in a small collaboration room since we have open concept office. The email telling us to mask back up came in at 2:30. I got physically ill somewhat. 
By the time I got off my call, my histo tech had gone down to the lab and brought up a box of surgical masks. All my folks were sitting at their desks with their mask down around their chin. De ju vue from May. That’s what we did before. Pull the thing down somewhat and when we got up to move around we pulled it back up. 
There is no distancing. The conference rooms are full capacity. We can remove the masks in the lunch room when we are all eating together at the same table. But as soon as we go back to our desk or 3 of us in a conference room taking business, it’s mask up. Management is supposed to be made up of smart people, yet this is what we do? 

here we go again.....this is never going to end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, correnjim1 said:

here we go again.....this is never going to end

What pisses me off even worse is Massachusetts and Cambridge isn’t under a mandate. Baker said he’s comfortable where we are with our vax rates, low hospitalizations, and low death numbers. Yet a private company is kowtowing to a CDC recommendation. 
Multinational corporations are letting the government tell them how to run their business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

What pisses me off even worse is Massachusetts and Cambridge isn’t under a mandate. Baker said he’s comfortable where we are with our vax rates, low hospitalizations, and low death numbers. Yet a private company is kowtowing to a CDC recommendation. 
Multinational corporations are letting the government tell them how to run their business. 

people have to say No....that's it no more lockdowns no more masks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

What pisses me off even worse is Massachusetts and Cambridge isn’t under a mandate. Baker said he’s comfortable where we are with our vax rates, low hospitalizations, and low death numbers. Yet a private company is kowtowing to a CDC recommendation. 
Multinational corporations are letting the government tell them how to run their business. 

The government is using private industry to enforce rules they legally/constitutionally cannot.

You see it with free speech all the time. The government can ask the largest online platforms to silence anyone who speaks out of turn against the narrative. It's literally happening all the time now. 

Now they are doing it with physical access to major businesses.

A couple years ago, this would have scared the crap out of Americans. The issue of equal access and protection under the law was settled decades ago during the civil rights movement. But now we are moving backwards on it and no one seems to care because COVID is super scary.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, correnjim1 said:

people have to say No....that's it no more lockdowns no more masks

Easier said than done. They pay my salary so it’s either suck it up or quit. All the local pharma put mandates back on. Merck and Astra Zeneca put there’s back on yesterday. Bristol Myers Squib and Pfizer put it back on last Thursday. I was just waiting for ours. I figured it would be yesterday honestly. 

Pfizer, lol. Of all companies to put an office mask mandate back on vaxed people. The irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

Easier said than done. They pay my salary so it’s either suck it up or quit. All the local pharma put mandates back on. Merck and Astra Zeneca put there’s back on yesterday. Bristol Myers Squib and Pfizer put it back on last Thursday. I was just waiting for ours. I figured it would be yesterday honestly. 

Pfizer, lol. Of all companies to put an office mask mandate back on vaxed people. The irony.

I love the fresh smell of virtue signaling and pointless hygiene theater in the morning.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The government is using private industry to enforce rules they legally/constitutionally cannot.

Isn’t a private company like @WhitinsvilleWX‘s telling their employees to mask up different though?  There’s no gov’t mandate to mask up in his state or his city.

That strikes me to be more about the legal atmosphere in this country where people can sue for anything they want…. not necessarily the gov’t using a private company.  Probably with a side of corporate virtue signaling but it strikes me more as something coming from the legal department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Isn’t a private company like @WhitinsvilleWX‘s telling their employees to mask up different though?  There’s no gov’t mandate to mask up in his state or his city.

That strikes me to be more about the legal atmosphere in this country where people can sue for anything they want…. not necessarily the gov’t using a private company.  Probably with a side of corporate virtue signaling but it strikes me more as something coming from the legal department.

The Federal government is putting a lot of pressure on companies to take this action. They have been talking about it non-stop. It's not even clear if the Federal government has the authority to "force" private companies to mandate vaccinations, but it looks like it might happen to some degree via this method.

Large businesses like Pfizer and big defense companies have lobbyists on the Hill who hear the chatter that if businesses don't comply they will face penalties or other restrictions on their ability to do business. This is the "soft mandate" I have always talked about.

"Force your employees to get vaccinated or else you will no longer be eligible to apply for Federal grants or bid on government contracts."

Someone might try to weasel word that and say, "Well that company could always just choose to go out of business instead!" but come on. It's a false choice and essentially extortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Isn’t a private company like @WhitinsvilleWX‘s telling their employees to mask up different though?  There’s no gov’t mandate to mask up in his state or his city.

That strikes me to be more about the legal atmosphere in this country where people can sue for anything they want…. not necessarily the gov’t using a private company.  Probably with a side of corporate virtue signaling but it strikes me more as something coming from the legal department.

Ah, it’s both. What Phin said above is basically correct. Pharma takes govt money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. If they don’t go along, we’ll…

I just find it funny that Pfizer going to mask mandate ms for vaxed office employees is tantamount to admitting their vax doesnt work. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think most businesses are viewing a vaccine mandate as a means to reduce liability. If you force someone to get a medical procedure that was not agreed to in their employment agreement, and they get sick from it, you can be sued for a lot of money. It is probably also going to be really problematic to fire someone for refusing the vaccine. 

This is definitely not something a company would do to lower liability, IMO. If you look at how few companies had done this up until now, that's pretty telling, I think. It's not a great business decision unless you are a hospital or something like that. Those places have mandated the flu vax for years so there is precedence there. Did the typical hair salon mandate the flu vaccine before? No, of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think most businesses are viewing a vaccine mandate as a means to reduce liability. If you force someone to get a medical procedure that was not agreed to in their employment agreement, and they get sick from it, you can be sued for a lot of money. It is probably also going to be really problematic to fire someone for refusing the vaccine. 
This is definitely not something a company would do to lower liability, IMO. If you look at how few companies had done this up until now, that's pretty telling, I think. It's not a great business decision unless you are a hospital or something like that.
This is becoming less about human health every day.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The Federal government is putting a lot of pressure on companies to take this action. They have been talking about it non-stop. It's not even clear if the Federal government has the authority to "force" private companies to mandate vaccinations, but it looks like it might happen to some degree via this method.

Large businesses like Pfizer and big defense companies have lobbyists on the Hill who hear the chatter that if businesses don't comply they will face penalties or other restrictions on their ability to do business. This is the "soft mandate" I have always talked about.

"Force your employees to get vaccinated or else you will no longer be eligible to apply for Federal grants or bid on government contracts."

Someone might try to weasel word that and say, "Well that company could always just choose to go out of business instead!" but come on. It's a false choice and essentially extortion.

 

3 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

Ah, it’s both. 

Yeah I'm probably too naive but I mean you see businesses like Family Dollar or Big Lots doing it, they aren't on capitol hill listening to lobbyists and stuff.  It just feels more like this virtue signaling (we aren't going to be called out for not doing enough to protect our employees!) and legal departments saying hey, just like we put a sign up that says wet floor every time a drop hits the tile, we should wear masks to avoid litigation.

I guess my line of thought was how we see it in the ski industry all the time... like a few too many employees get hit in the back of the head with a chairlift due to poor situational awareness.  Now they all have to wear helmets if they are walking or working under the bullwheel.  There are pluses and minuses.  Helmets might even lower your situational awareness by limiting your field of vision and dampen noises that might otherwise clue you into something coming behind you.

But employees put helmets on so that when OSHA comes around or any legal stuff happens it can be said that everything is being done outside of bubble wrapping the lift operators.  I just see it more and more that companies continue to try harder and harder to reduce liability and in my mind masks fit into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Also, I don't think most businesses are viewing a vaccine mandate as a means to reduce liability. If you force someone to get a medical procedure that was not agreed to in their employment agreement, and they get sick from it, you can be sued for a lot of money. It is probably also going to be really problematic to fire someone for refusing the vaccine. 

This is definitely not something a company would do to lower liability, IMO. If you look at how few companies had done this up until now, that's pretty telling, I think. It's not a great business decision unless you are a hospital or something like that. Those places have mandated the flu vax for years so there is precedence there. Did the typical hair salon mandate the flu vaccine before? No, of course not.

Yeah for clarity I meant mask mandates.  Nothing about vaccine mandates.  Mask mandates seem like a very easy way to reduce liability and say "see look at us, we tried, we gave them all hand sanitizer and made them put on masks."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

Ah, it’s both. What Phin said above is basically correct. Pharma takes govt money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. If they don’t go along, we’ll…

I just find it funny that Pfizer going to mask mandate ms for vaxed office employees is tantamount to admitting their vax doesnt work. 

I'd be curious to know what your employment agreement says about mandatory vaccines, if anything. I assume the flu vax has always been mandatory there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, powderfreak said:

 

Yeah I'm probably too naive but I mean you see businesses like Family Dollar or Big Lots doing it, they aren't on capitol hill listening to lobbyists and stuff.  It just feels more like this virtue signaling (we aren't going to be called out for not doing enough to protect our employees!) and legal departments saying hey, just like we put a sign up that says wet floor every time a drop hits the tile, we should wear masks to avoid litigation.

I guess my line of thought was how we see it in the ski industry all the time... like a few too many employees get hit in the back of the head with a chairlift due to poor situational awareness.  Now they all have to wear helmets if they are walking or working under the bullwheel.  There are pluses and minuses.  Helmets might even lower your situational awareness by limiting your field of vision and dampen noises that might otherwise clue you into something coming behind you.

But employees put helmets on so that when OSHA comes around or any legal stuff happens it can be said that everything is being done outside of bubble wrapping the lift operators.  I just see it more and more that companies continue to try harder and harder to reduce liability and in my mind masks fit into that.

Masks, I agree with you. I could see that being done to reduce liability. Making someone wear a mask does not potentially endanger their well-being or violate their private medical self-determination. Or at least that would be easier to argue in court.

But forcing a medical procedure on someone who did not have that in their employment agreement (with the alternative being termination) is hugely problematic in my experience with labor laws. Many lawsuits are going to come out of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my company is setting us up for a vax mandate. The way the email was worded, it makes me think that the way out of masks at work is to mandate a vax.
They’ve been touting a September return to work. The email today said that was being backed off until late October or November. With the holidays, that will get backed  off till after the first of the year. No office people will come back to work en masse if they have to wear a mask after sitting on their a$$ at home for the last 18 months on Zoom.

In betting that the place will be a tomb tomorrow. We had a few non lab people back, but after today, they’ll be back on zoom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

Ah, it’s both. What Phin said above is basically correct. Pharma takes govt money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. If they don’t go along, we’ll…

I just find it funny that Pfizer going to mask mandate ms for vaxed office employees is tantamount to admitting their vax doesnt work. 

Certainly looks that way at first glance! Some really bad messaging out there right now if the goal is to convince skeptics to get the vaccine and reassure those who already got it that they made a good decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Certainly looks that way at first glance! Some really bad messaging out there right now if the goal is to convince skeptics to get the vaccine and reassure those who already got it that they made a good decision.

Well, I don’t REALLY think that’s what they’re saying. It’s just poor optics if they want people to take their vax. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it hilarious how people thought masks were never coming back.  It was always the easiest thing to bring back.  i thought they'd come back in the fall, but this was even quicker than i expected.

the cdc guidance from may 13th will go down in infamy as one of the worst messaging blunders in history.  it'll be taught in schools decades from now as a case study in what you shouldn't do.

most non-influenza pandemics last 3-5 years...it'll be best for everyone's collective psyche to accept that reality.  maybe invest your Dogecoin in some innovative mask companies.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fujiwara79 said:

I still find it hilarious how people thought masks were never coming back.  It was always the easiest thing to bring back.  i thought they'd come back in the fall, but this was even quicker than i expected.

the cdc guidance from may 13th will go down in infamy as one of the worst messaging blunders in history.  it'll be taught in schools decades from now as a case study in what you shouldn't do.

most non-influenza pandemics last 3-5 years...it'll be best for everyone's collective psyche to accept that reality.  maybe invest your Dogecoin in some innovative mask companies.

You seem to enjoy hygiene theater. I guess it makes sense to you for vaccinated people to mask up around each other indefinitely?

  • Haha 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fujiwara79 said:

I still find it hilarious how people thought masks were never coming back.  It was always the easiest thing to bring back.  i thought they'd come back in the fall, but this was even quicker than i expected.

the cdc guidance from may 13th will go down in infamy as one of the worst messaging blunders in history.  it'll be taught in schools decades from now as a case study in what you shouldn't do.

most non-influenza pandemics last 3-5 years...it'll be best for everyone's collective psyche to accept that reality.  maybe invest your Dogecoin in some innovative mask companies.

How many hours a day do you wear yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Masks, I agree with you. I could see that being done to reduce liability. Making someone wear a mask does not potentially endanger their well-being or violate their private medical self-determination. Or at least that would be easier to argue in court.

But forcing a medical procedure on someone who did not have that in their employment agreement (with the alternative being termination) is hugely problematic in my experience with labor laws. Many lawsuits are going to come out of this.

Yeah and just to be clear I don't really have a stance on it in this liability vs gov't interference, just musing some thoughts.  The masks seem "easy" and companies like easy ways to reduce liability.

For sure mandating vaccines is in a whole other ballpark.  I'm firm your body your choice on all angles so that's a hard no from me.  Now, get vaccinated or wear a mask like many companies have started doing (I know we talked about it with FOX news and other corporations), it's an incentive but it's not a forced deal.  I'm more lukewarm on that one.

Companies can make you do things, like wear a mask or wear a helmet (ski country requires a lot of helmet wearing) or wear a red shirt... but once they step into forced vaccinations I'm off the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Yeah and just to be clear I don't really have a stance on it in this liability vs gov't interference, just musing some thoughts.  The masks seem "easy" and companies like easy ways to reduce liability.

For sure mandating vaccines is in a whole other ballpark.  I'm firm your body your choice on all angles so that's a hard no from me.  Now, get vaccinated or wear a mask like many companies have started doing (I know we talked about it with FOX news and other corporations), it's an incentive but it's not a forced deal.  I'm more lukewarm on that one.

Companies can make you do things, like wear a mask or wear a helmet (ski country requires a lot of helmet wearing) or wear a red shirt... but once they step into forced vaccinations I'm off the boat.

This is one of those times I wish I was a lawyer who specialized in wrongful termination cases. They are going to have a field day with this. Many easy settlements coming now. Just send a letter to the employer who fired your client over vaccination status and demand $100k.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...