Part 1, Part 2

Our story so far:

1. My office received a corporate reopening plan at the end of August.
2. The plan mandated masks and testing, but no vaxx "at this time."
3. In early September I let the named HR contact know that I would comply if she could satisfy my conditions.
4. They were laid out in a Conditional Acceptance (CA) that identified her as the principal in a Common Law action (see Part 2 for details).
5. The CA gave her ten days in which to respond, and was sent by both electronic and registered mail.
6. Being named in the policy (making them agents), I copied my group's president and head of development.

Let's pick things up on the Saturday after the positing of my CA:

I checked my company email and found a note from my immediate manager who was dismayed by the surprising lack of trust and openness my action displayed. Management was also mystified as to why I was objecting, since returning to the office was voluntary.

I laid any communication breakdown at corporate's feet. By parroting the government’s 24/7 “be afraid, be very afraid” mantra, and imposing top-down controls instead of treating us as adults who can make decisions for ourselves, they have done their level best to make us fearful of the world and of each other. Officially closing offices and sending us off to hide in our basements a year after the various state lockdowns, had illegitimacy written all over it. Why then? What were they not telling me? Was I being manipulated? Why should I trust anything they say?

Laying these mandates on us with two days notice with no discussion, and without seeking comments certainly didn't inspire trust. Does corporate think masking us will somehow restore esprit de corps? How do muffled voices emitting from obscured faces not hamper communication, stir mistrust, feed fear, and continue to isolate?

The policy itself is unlawful, and excludes those not willing to undergo medical interventions. I added, that if JD has been paying attention to the pandemic rollout, he knows that “two weeks to flatten the curve” has no end. I can't say what supposed variant we’re on, but I can guarantee the last variant is totalitarianism. I made clear that I was standing on principle, and expected the policy to be dropped. That this is the hill to die on. We left it at that.

I returned after a week of vacation to see a Teams meeting scheduled for that Monday morning between myself, JD, and HR legal (HR facilities had forwarded them my email). In the meeting, CC at HR acknowledged having received my CA, and having had it reviewed by their lawyers. She said that they had gotten many inquires, complaints, and challenges with regard to their policy. The lawyers had informed her that company policy was perfectly legal, and there was no reason to address my conditions.

Of course I objected. Besides being unlawful toward bodily autonomy, skirting anti-discrimination laws by claiming to follow CDC guidelines, and making office attendance voluntary (for now) is deceitful. The existence of such mandates excludes me from participating in day-to-day office activity in the same way that removing wheelchair ramps keep the physically handicapped out.

I added that there is no real science behind the CDC's rules, only scientism. I started to bring up the dozens of news pieces, journal articles, and technical papers I had collect on just this one aspect of the so-called pandemic when JD chimed in that CC wasn't in a position to judge the merit of these. Basically admitting that the company doesn't care about the facts.

And so it rolled. CC spent most of the remaining time restating company policy, and making it clear that if I was not going to wear a mask, I could not be in the office. Contradicting that stance, she proceeded to offer information about requesting a medical or religious exemption. I couldn't help but answer, "I'm not interested in asking anybody for my rights. As a free man, I am asserting them." It bounced right off her. She gushed on, bizarrely to my mind, about how great it was to live in a society where we can have such differences of opinion, and still work together.

That's were it ended, at least in the minds of CC & JD. Well, yesterday was the expiration of the extended deadline for the CA. So on Friday afternoon I sent CC a Courtesy Notice (CN) informing her that because she had not yet answered my CA in proper “affidavit” form, nor rebutted its items on a point-by-point basis, her reply up to now is insufficient and has no lawful merit or value.

But hey, maybe this was a simple oversight or misunderstanding on your part. So I am magnanimously giving you another five days in which to respond.

Well, I got an email back in less than an hour. CC was clearly befuddled. She stressed that I had already been told how it was going to be during our meeting, that there is no room for negotiation, and HR doesn't have to answer any stinkin' conditions. I just chuckled, because she has set herself up for default, a notice for which I will be sending out at the end of next week.

Stay tuned for part 4, Pedes.