MILWAUKEE – A Wisconsin Republican lawmaker on Thursday, Aug. 12 introduced legislation that would allow people to get unemployment benefits if they quit a job due to not wanting to comply with an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement.
The proposed legislation would also apply to people fired for failing to comply with an employer’s vaccine mandate. Additionally, workers who quit or were fired for not providing proof of vaccination would be eligible for unemployment benefits.
According to a news release from Rep. Ron Brooks, who introduced the measure, current state law stipulates that people fired from or who quit a job are ineligible to receive unemployment until a certain amount of time passes.
Right now the guidelines are very clear for unemployment eligibility. If you quit, you aren’t eligible – irrespective of the reason you quit. We do not want to open the door to government making value judgments for “good” and “bad” reasons to quit. I can totally see, for example, that future Democrats would expand the list of “good” reasons to include things like perceived racism, wage disputes, or political differences. This will create havoc on businesses trying to keep employees and drive up the cost of business and government.
Leave this alone. It really stinks that some people are being forced to make the very hard choice of their job or getting a vaccine, but this is not the cure.
I disagree as well. It would be similar to getting unemployment for refusing to wear a hard hat or safety glasses.
It seems that this year has brought out a large number of Silly Pubbie proposals.
S’pose it’s a side-effect of wearing masks?
“S’pose it’s a side-effect of wearing masks?”
Oxygen deprivation, brilliant.
I disagree with the benefits for the quitting part, but aren’t they technically all being let go or fired? I am not against interpreting the current law to give people fired for not complying with vaccination, unemployment benefits. There are all kinds of regulations companies can either deny or be forced to give unemployment benefits and the company has the right to make their own rules. However, I would think that is part of what goes into the decision to make vaccinations a company policy, that you will/may be paying unemployment. There have been unemployment benefit decisions going both ways for the same offense in review/appeal boards for as long as there have been unemployment benefits. To not be vaccinated is a right and if your company chooses to take away that right, they can bloody well be forced to pay unemployment for doing so.
I believe the research that tells us that Covid has not acted like a virus since the beginning and I have read a lot of conspiracy theory about the vaccines possibly having negative impacts on different demographics by design. I don’t really believe there is anything in the current vaccines, but I do believe that different Governments (ours included) are willing to entertain those ideas ‘for our own good’. If they can get the precedent of forced vaccines accepted the foundation is fully laid…
Now adding legislation prohibiting lawsuits for refusing to HIRE someone because they are not vaccinated I would be fine with.
Next: Don’t want the micro chip? Your fired.
I disagree.
If an employer fires an employee for not getting a vaccine, that iso the employer, who pays the unemployment tax. It’s the employers choice to change the working conditions.
And what about those who have natural immunity? Or unable toget the vaccine because of health reasons?
Or if the employee is a union member and this is subject to negotiation?
And since this an experimental vaccine currently, how can the employer make you get the vaccine? And if the employer require it then the employer needs to pay up.
The employer is changing the workplace and they is on the employer, not the emoyee.
“It would be similar to getting unemployment for refusing to wear a hard hat or safety glasses.”
Stupid comparison.
Wearing a hard hat or safety glasses are well established rules and you are not injecting something in your body, whether it’s needed or not.
And if you have been on the job for 10 years, for instance, you are changing the work rules. And if that is case, the employer needs to pay.
Yup, Mar. I agree. If someone willingly quits before the rule goes in to effect, they don’t get paid, but if they are fired over it they get unemployment. Like Owen, I do not want precedents set where Government steps in (more than they already do) and give unemployment to someone who voluntarily quits.
since this an experimental vaccine currently,
“Currently” is the key. Expect FDA to approve it around Labor day. THAT is why the hospitals don’t require teh vax completed until late October or so. They know FDA will approve–no matter what dangers exist.
That confused Belling, too.
Why is requiring a vaccine any different than requiring safety equipment, a uniform or specific training? If it is a condition of employment, you do it or go elsewhere. This is nothing new, in the ‘70’s I was required to wear a hard hat and steel-toed boots by my employer and their insurance carrier. I’d bet insurance companies are having input into the vaccine requirement these days.
And Pun Head Le Roi asks another stupid question that’s already been answered.
The difference is, dumbass, us that you wearing ing your boots and gard hats out if your body.
The experimental vaccine goes into your body
And if you are a union person, this has to negotiated because it is a chance of employment condition.
For others who are not union, I’ll let the Supreme Court decide this.
But they should still get unemployment compensation if they are fired because if vaccine requirements.
1) safety equipment is designed to protect the wearer, not ‘all those around them’.
2) anyone can see what safety equipment is for, the average ‘user’ cannot see what the experimental drug does, they have to take a very shaky source’s word for it, the US Government.
3) The FDA has already proven that they do not have the consumer’s best interest at heart, they listen to what the money says (look at all the crap they allow injected into our food that even CHINA says is too unhealthy for their people, for example), and the money says ‘Approve this drug’. Can anyone imagine doing otherwise? Can you imagine that if the FDA finds proof that the vaccines have dangers/faults/problems, that the public would be informed? It would make the Democrats lose all credibility even in some liberal eyes. It won’t happen.
4) Hard hats don’t kill or permanently injure anyone. The vaccine does.
Those are a few of the differences I can think of off the top of my head. I wonder what the insurance company input is. Companies are not being sued for Covid deaths provided the company has followed CDC guidelines. They will be sued for any and all serious side-effects from forcing the vaccine on employees right along side the drug companies. A lot of people have had mild reactions to the first shot and serious permanent problems from the second. If my first shot had cause a bad reaction, I would not take the second even at risk of losing my job. That Le Roi, certain companies, and the US Gov expects them to is, in my opinion, pretty disgusting.
Crap, write is the sunny Arizona weather, outside, you screw things up because of the sun glare.
Dumbass Le Roi repeats a question thats already been answered.
The question is if they should get unemployment compensation.
The employer changed working conditions, so if the employer fires the the employee for not getting the vaccination, then the employer has to pay the unemployment claim.
And getting an experimental vaccine is a lot different than putting on boots and boots.
The vaccine can go into your body and you can side effects. If that happens,does the employee get workman’s compensation, perhaps for the rest of your life? If they get the Chinese virus after they get the vaccine, do they get workman’s compensation? Perhaps for life?
Even if they get the mild side effects and have to call out sick, the employer should be responsible.
If you put on boots and a hard hat, what are the side effects? A blister on your feet? A bad hair day with a helmet?
More stupidity from Pervert Boy Le Roi.
Why can’t an employer change their conditions of employment as events, insurance, and common sense dictate? Happens all the time with new ideas, information, technology, etc.
Were you required to get vaccines when you were in the service?
I think you need more than sunglasses to make any sense.
Because, dumbass,they are changing work rules.
Yes,they can fire you, perhaps, until the Supreme Court rules, but as far as unemployment compensation, which this of is blog about, they should be entitled to workman’s compensation.
So mar, you want the republican legislature to step in and dictate what a private business can, or can’t, do in regard to their conditions of employment, safety requirements, and staffing ? Sounds pretty much like what you guys claim that Democrats do. Maybe a union would help? Oh, that’s right, you guys don’t like unions. So much hypocrisy, so little time.
And another stupid post by Pervert Boy Le Roi.
Senile Joe has been dictating what we can and cannot do. Same with tyrannical liberals who order mask mandates, lockdowns of cities, require vaccination cards to get into a restaurants, who shut down religious services.
Not even close, Pervert Boy Le Roi.
mar:
Did you forget, this thread is about a republican lawmaker in WI interfering with private business. It isn’t about Biden, liberals, mask mandates, nor religion. Not even close.
So you need to stay focused and on task. Otherwise you look even more foolish than normal.
Oh, Pervert, Boy Le Roi, I cannot even respond to utter stupity.
Go back to the nursing home, get your diaper changed and have your CNA sing you a lullaby to get you to sleep, along the thorzine and the other meds you are on.
You make a Special Olympian look like Steven Hawking.
Pervert Boy Le Roi you remind me of someone who has Anencephaly but dumber.
No mar, you can’t respond because you have no logical, rational response other than name calling and false accusations. Does that make you feel more complete, more manly, more superior?
I already answered you moron.
Damn, they really must give you a lot of medicine at the institution..
And my name calling you is 100% accurate.
So, what’s the problem?
And you show me as much respect as well.
Does that make you feel superior?
100% accurate?? Surely you jest? You haven’t made an accurate claim about me in…… forever.
But you just keep on with the bluster, bile, and bs if it makes you feel more important.
Le Roi, it is your argument that is off the mark and untenable. Once again Mar is right and you are out in left field. The topic of this thread was about a couple of things:
1) whether legislators should make a law that gives people who quit unemployment.
2) whether the same law should give unemployment to people who are fired unemployment.
Mar and I both agreed that quitters get nothing and firees should get unemployment. We never said anything about whether companies can or cannot change their rules, you straw manned that idea up and then accused Mar of saying that companies cannot make new rules. He told you multiple times the post and thread were about whether the former employees should get unemployment for changed rules not whether companies can change rules. You are the one with no logical, rational responses. You made a dumbass segue and put it into Mar’s mouth and have been pretending he said it ever since.
You should really stop trolling, you aren’t very good at it.
Prove me wrong, Pervert Boy Le Roi.
When are you going to condemn the pervert judge who watches babies being raped and distributes child porn, is sitting jail, waiting to be sentenced after agreeing to a plea bargain.
Until you do that, you will be Pervert Boy Le Roi.
But then, you will be known as Lying Le Roi because you have been caught lying so many times.
Then, of course, Coward Boy Le Roi because you refuse to defend yourself.
And if you get by that, the Uneducated Le Roi, as you backed down from YOUR challenge to me to compare our educational records.
But , of course, there is Special Olympian Le Roi because of your nonsensical arguments.
And Hateful Le Roi as you have so much hate in your heart.
And Disrespectful Le Roi for the suspect you show people here.
Oh my, I can keep on going, but you get the point….
Oh wait, you probably don’t, Dumbass Le Roi.
t:
Call me off base if you want, doesn’t make it so.
“The employer changed working conditions, so if the employer fires the the employee for not getting the vaccination, then the employer has to pay the unemployment claim.”
Wasn’t me that said that. Suck it up t, you missed this, and more.
mar:
Yap, yap, yap,……..
Dumbass Le Roi, Tuerqas never said you said that.
Yap, yap, yap, Special Olympian Le Roi.
Dumbass.
Correct (for the first time ), you said it.
Caught lying again.
““The employer changed working conditions, so if the employer fires the the employee for not getting the vaccination, then the employer has to pay the unemployment claim.” mar @8-17-21 12:10 PM.
Ok, so what, moron.
I know already I wrote that and Tuerqas did not.
What’s your point?
Just making sure you know you were wrong, and were lying about me again.
You must be having another Senile Joe moment
Just a bunch of babble. Make sure you wipe the food off your chin.
So mar, since you didn’t refute that quote, you admit you were wrong, and once again falsely called me a liar.
You never refuted it to me so, you’re just be an senile asshole now.
Prove me wrong.
To me, Pervert Boy Le Roi.
So if an employer can make you take a drug what else can they make you do as a requirement of employment? Lose weight or get fired ?
Remove your tattoos or get fired ? Whiten your teeth or get fired?
““The employer changed working conditions, so if the employer fires the the employee for not getting the vaccination, then the employer has to pay the unemployment claim.”
Wasn’t me that said that. Suck it up t, you missed this, and more.”
He throws the dart and misses the dart board!!! Mar did say that. It just doesn’t mean what you are saying it means.
Le Roi, it is you still missing out on the point. Mar’s quote that you show above does not in any way state that Mar believes the company can’t make new rules. It only means they (should) have to pay unemployment for said changes exactly as we have both said earlier, which you contradict even as I think you agree with it.
You asked Why is vaccine different than a hard hat requirement and was answered by multiple people.
YOU then modulated to:
“Why can’t an employer change their conditions of employment as events, insurance, and common sense dictate? Happens all the time with new ideas, information, technology, etc.”
Mar answered:
‘Yes, they can fire you, perhaps, until the Supreme Court rules, but as far as unemployment compensation, which this post and thread is about, they should be entitled to workman’s compensation.’
He told you EXACTLY the truth, that your question was off target and really a different conversation altogether. He never said that companies couldn’t change rules, only that they should pay unemployment if they fire someone due to the new rule.
Despite being told and shown why your question was an irrelevant strawman you doubled down:
“So mar, you want the republican legislature to step in and dictate what a private business can, or can’t, do in regard to their conditions of employment, safety requirements, and staffing ?” (Nope, it’s about making them pay unemployment)
tripled down:
“Did you forget, this thread is about a republican lawmaker in WI interfering with private business. It isn’t about Biden, liberals, mask mandates, nor religion. Not even close.
So you need to stay focused and on task. Otherwise you look even more foolish than normal.” (Nope it is about Republican lawmakers preventing employers from firing people with impunity by making up new rules, NOT that they cannot make them. Nothing new, rulings by unemployment boards happen all the time on new rules)
quadrupled down:
“No mar, you can’t respond because you have no logical, rational response other than name calling and false accusations. ” (There was no relevant response to your questions much less logical or rational).
And of course the quintuple down to me saying that I missed something, already quoted above.
A logical argument breaks down as soon as the first fallacy is introduced (that would be when you asked why companies can’t make up new rules), and everything else is then flawed. There is no need to refute Mar’s quote. There is only refuting what you say the quote means. Refuted.
Thank you Tuerqas, couldn’t have said better myself.
And the pinhead never did apologize to you for lying about you.
Actually, Tuerqas, I should apologize to you.
Your post is much better than I could come with.
Good job.
You two -Tuerqas and Mar, are wasting your time, that’s way too much effort spent on Leroy. He’s a loud mouthed moronic Liberal, nothing more. I’ve tried many times to explain things to him when we disagree – he’s obnoxiously foolish, so now I just call it what it is, and don’t expend any more time than that.
I agree Jason, but it’s do much fun taking down an uneducated, lying, perverted coward Le Roi.
Two responses Jason:
I agree with mar that It is also fun to see what new things he comes up with before the final take down where he discontinues responses.
If he is never responded to, we would see comments about ‘How none of us could refute him in that last thread’. When he talks to/at me, it is necessary (for me) to make sure the conversation is honest. If someone says I missed something (and I do miss things), it should be a true statement.
Don’t forget Tuerqas, he has never apologized to you for using my quote and attributing it to you.
I don’t know if if I should be honored or you should be insulted.
And the guy claims to be an elected official.
He makes Tony Evers look bright, which is a pretty solid accomplishment.
I never expect apologies from liberals, Mar. You can never prove anything to them, even if the answer is a 5lb object and you smack them in the face with it. All you can really hope for is a compliment from another conservative, so thank you very much.
Dad29:
“He makes Tony Evers look bright, which is a pretty solid accomplishment.”
LOL. But does that mean we have to give him some inkling of respect?
Personally, I kind of think that may prove he was a liberal elected official…