1 person in our work will not get vaccinated…

My reply to her would be "I am sorry to hear that. My choice is to require vaccines to work at my company" 

Dear My Choice,

I'm sorry to hear that. Please send your resignation notice and we will make arrangements to mail your last check.

Wishing you well in your future endeavors,

The BOSS

This is untrue. Being fired is not "your decision". Quitting is your decision. In order for an employer to fight unemployment for someone they fired, they have to have full documentation and even then that isnt always enough.

The first question I’d ask top management if I was the HR manager would be what do you want? Is it 100% compliance within what’s legally allowed? And the second question would be when are you available to speak with an employment attorney?

The courts have been on the side of the employers, as is the EEOC. There still has to be reasonable accommodation for people with medical or religious issues that would prevent them from getting vaccinated. And the employer also has to provide a safe work place for the rest of the employees. Lots of articles about requiring vaccinations are on line. 

While it feels complicated and is an emotional ordeal, dollars to donuts, every employment attorney around has already helped a bunch of employers talk through options, possible outcomes and craft a policy. It’s worth an hour or two of time to have the relief of doing it right.

And there’s a possibility that another policy or policies should be in place as well. 

I was in HR for a long time, passed SHRM’s senior certification test, went to tons of legal seminars and met with other HR managers/directors monthly to hash out issues. But I’d absolutely be on the phone with an employment attorney.

Another HR person here (not American of course, but I've worked for FTSE100 and Dow Jones companies), and I agree there's some very dodgy advice on this thread.

OP, why is your boss discussing your colleague's medical history with you anyway? S/he could have asked you to draft a policy without sharing specifics with you.

The worrying development for me is that it appears that -


Delta Virus loads have been measured as being the same quantity in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people - (info from August 6 below)

I think that vaccinations are important , as are masks, distancing, ventilation and sanitation. I feel this whole situation of protecting one another is about far far more than just vaccines alone.

I originally posted this photo in a different thread but as it vaccine related it might be worth putting here as well, it was new updated information that I had been unaware of before. I think it changes things.

Very easily.  Customers are transient.  Employees are there all day/shift/whatever.

I do not understand how to read that chart; the very first row seems to suggest that Pfizer is still 88% effective. And if I'm reading it right, the sample size for the Wisconsin group is 83... is that a statistically significant number?

True, especially with the first variants. But with delta even brief proximity is risky.

Eddie-n-Harley

Sorry, I don’t know , I am struggling trying to understand the implications of what the chart means myself.

The figures seem to vary , the Israeli study suggests only a 39% effectiveness , whilst others are different .
It is confusing.

When I looked at Eric Topal’s bio I thought he looks like such a reliable source and I just thought if he says vaccines are 50/60 % effective at best I decided that I will go along with that.

The Wisconsin sample group of 83 and the sample group from the Public Health England report from August 6 if combined and put together would make a larger sample size but I don’t know the numbers involved in the PHE report. It is all a new subject for me , and I do not have a science background ,so unfortunately I am not able to say what sample size would be considered statistically significant .

The question I have been pondering is if the viral load count is the same for both vaccinated and unvaccinated , could that mean that the virus is equally transmissible regardless of vaccination status ?
I don’t know the answer but If so , that would be quite a worry, especially if other forms of protection are removed too.

Here are a couple of excellent COVID-19 resource centers from firms (neither of which I'm associated with, but both of which have provided umpteen COVID-19 related training sessions I've "attended" over the last year and a half) specializing in employment law, in case that's helpful to you in your drafting and/or helps minimize the expense of your local legal review:  Husch Blackwell and McDermott

I'm not an American so nothing useful to add really but this topic interests me. Can someone tell me if her claiming unemployment benefits is a cost to the company in any way? I see some people commenting about how decisions could be made to ensure she doesn't receive unemployment so I am wondering if it's a cost to the company if she does? Or is it just for the sake of sticking it to her?

If it's no cost to the company, I'd be inclined not to try and checkmate her on that. It's only going to escalate the resentment on both sides. Even if she does get it, it's not something that's going to sustain her long term and eventually she will need to deal with her antivax stance if she wants a decent job.

Best to just get an employment lawyer to sort it out...which will only help you for future hirings anyway.

Yes, it's a cost to the employer.  They pay state and federal unemployment insurance.  Their rates go up when somebody is paid unemployment after being laid off.  I don't know about other states but in TX and OK, you can't get unemployment if you quit or are terminated for cause.  It is only for layoffs.