Tyson Foods to Require COVID-19 Vaccinations for its U.S. Workforce

I can't convince you to get the vaccine man. You do what's best for you. You're pretty steadfast on your stance. I could tell you that majority of the vaccinated have been ok, the number of vaccinated catching covid is not a real big number, or that the higher number of cases come from the unvaccinated. You've formulated your opinion and at the end of the day, you're going to stick to your subjective guns.

 

De Balascio said that the rest of the country should and will have a vaccine mandate just like he’s doing in NYC.

Many of us saw these things coming over a year ago and now it’s happening. I don’t understand how your not seeing it. It’s right before your eyes.

 

you are getting the picture.

you mask up you get vaccinated and don’t worry about anyone else.

wether I’m vaccinated or not doesn’t matter. I am making that choice and I don’t need the gooberment to make that for me.


Since your vaccinated and the “infection isn’t serious” to the vaccinated then that means your all good. Stop trying to advocate for the government controlling people’s lives.

 

----
Don't Get the Jab!!!


Dear Boss,


Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinio n advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect.

(Key Questions About COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates)


Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.


At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?


First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine.

(21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

(The Nuremberg Code ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).


Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business.

(Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Disability Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.


Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.

(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) )


Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others."

(UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. BOTSFORD.)


With Regards,

Employee of the Year


XXX

 

P.s. this was written by a good Samaritan. I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice.

I crashed your forum to get advice on a cb radio, in case of an emergency. Sorry. These are crazy times. Please stay safe out there!

Thanks,

Lori

 

A vaccine by definition creates immunity. So the fact that “vaccinated” people are still getting and transmitting Covid proves it’s not a vaccine. Is the CDC keeping track of everything sperately? Since the “vaccine” has been available any Covid case should’ve been asked if theyre vaccinated, have had Covid before, or if it is their first Covid positive test. That would’ve been valuable information but they lump it all together as a total number to keep the Covid count high. What if people who have had Covid and didn’t get the vaccine are better off? We don’t know that because they didn’t track the info. Most of the people I know who have had it aren’t willing to get the shot because they’ve already had Covid.

 

My point was they forced it on their employees. The only reason they didn't force it on everyone else at the same time, is because they can't. Not because they don't want to. There's other roundabout ways they can get it forced onto the "little people".

 

Almost forgot the reason I came here. My brother was unloading fats in Holcomb KS on Friday and one of the people on the dock said there’s quite a few taking about walking off the job if they try and force this on them. I think they kill around 4000 head of cattle at that plant daily.

 

Walmart is also giving a deadline for their employees t be vaccinated or be out of a job.. both them and Tyson will lose in court big time…this crap from everything that i can see and many folks can see is that the people aren’t going to to put up with this crap….many folks are not fooled anymore…

 

I see where you all are coming from. I just don't agree with it. Yall are focused solely on mandates and freedoms and such. It's always about freedoms in these threads. I don't have a problem with a mandate as long as it helps people. We follow mandates blindly all the time. The handful of people that caught covid after vaccination, yall have taken that and ran all the way left with it. For a lot more people, it has helped them. I see it that way. I see these moves as something to push the country in a more positive direction. No violation of freedoms. You're a fleet owner, and I'm sure you have particular mandates to protect your business interests. I respect that. Hell we gotta follow certain mandates just to be truckers! Tyson mandated it for their employees, as did other jobs. DeBlasio mandated it for the people in his city. I don't blame them. It ain't going to be perfect man. If we were to go back to another lockdown, then all of you would come back on here raising hell about that. I haven't got the vaccine yet, but it's in my future. That's a decision I'm making for me to get it. I'm free. If it becomes a mandate, so be it. To me it doesn't hurt nothing. As usual, yall have a different viewpoint than I do. It's ok. I respect it. We just see things differently.

 

“A handful” of vaccinated people. How many people were vaccinated by the end of April? Because the CDC said that there were about 10k breakthrough cases as of the end of April. How many of the new Covid cases in the “4th Wave” are breakthrough cases? We won’t know because the CDC stopped keeping track.

Curious how far your attitude of “well as long as it’s helps people” goes. If you owned property and were facing foreclosure or tax liens because your tenants haven’t been paying rent would you be fine with that because it helps the people not having to pay rent? Would you be upset that the government did something illegal but it affects your small business? Would you be fine if your business was shut down while the box stores stayed open but hey it was to help people?

I know you play this role of being fine if people just do what they want but you kinda don’t because it sort of seems like you don’t really read what people are saying, you’re just thinking of your reply as you skip over their words. You have a member that came from a communist country telling you what he fled and how this country is going down that same path and you’re like “well I don’t think it’s bad if it helps people” or “I don’t see the problem with a non-tested non-FDA approved vaccine being forced on people if their employers want to”.

The vaccine isn’t a vaccine by the true definition of the word. It’s also not a traditional vaccine in the sense that it’s something we’ve never seen before. And they’re forcing it out under Emergency Use Authorization because it hasn’t been tested. The test is happening now and about half the country signed up for it. They pulled a swine flu vaccine from the market because 80 people developed narcolepsy. 80 people. Why did they pull it so soon? Because they could be held liable for damages. And now with all the mRNA stuff you can’t even go after them for damages if it affects you for the rest of your life.

Edit: You’re also ignoring the fact that it’s illegal for them to mandate the vaccine because it’s emergency use only. But what the heck, it helps people right? So what if it’s not legal.

 

I read today a anti vaccine radio host just died of COVID-19 and on his deathbed change his mind and said people should get the vaccinated. I don't know anything about the guy but he was Newsmax radio host and said the vaccine was poison, untill he got COVID-19 and just before his death changed his mind about the vaccine.
Vocal anti-vaccine broadcaster dies from COVID-19 complications

.