Looks like my company I have worked for 2 years now helping them generate revenue is going to give me a deadline Nov 30th to provide HR proof of vaccination. Looks like Biden is going to get me unemployed just in time for Christmas. Wow what a great fucking president, what a fucking ass hole prick getting a bunch of people fired a month before Christmas. No wonder people hate his fucking guts. I'm just going to refuse and they're going to have to fire me, furlough me, I don't give a shit, I'll still see them in court.. bet on it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (164)
sorted by:
Here is an idea of how I might handle it in that situation.
Sounds like your company is a federal contractor. In that case, the OSHA "mandate" probably does not apply. Too bad, since it only applied to a very few, limited companies and was set aside (for now) by the 5th Circuit Appeals Court. I wrote about how it does not really say what it seems to say here:
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzxu77tQ/
It is worth reading through that, in case your company tries to rely on it. Also, it is important to understand that almost EVERYTHING the federal government does that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution is done via smoke and mirrors. They make it SEEM like they have authority to do something, but what the law/statute/regulation actually SAYS is not the same thing as what the media CLAIMS it says. The OSHA thing is a good example.
Regarding federal contractors, the Executive order 14042 is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-adequate-covid-safety-protocols-for-federal-contractors/
It shows the legal authority claimed in order to implement the order -- 3 USC 301 and 40 USC 101.
3 USC 301:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/301
This just says the President can delegate authority to the head of an agency. Not a big deal for you.
Now, look at 40 USC 101, et seq:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/101
The "et seq" means other sections of Title 40. Section 101 doesn't really say anything. It is actually section 102, paragraph 4 that is of interest.
Before going there, notice what Section 1 of the EO says:
This is a lie, and we can prove it with information from the NIH:
https://www.primarydoctor.org/covidvaccine
The federal government's own head of vaccine trials said there is NO date related to transmission of Covid for those who take the vaxx. That means the "policy" statement in the EO is false.
Section 2 of the EO references 40 USC 102(4)(A), which is the agency that is being given this EO.
That agency came out with this "guidance" --
https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/downloads/Draft%20contractor%20guidance%20doc_20210922.pdf
Notice that is ALSO repeats the lie about Covid tranmission:
It is ALL based on FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION.
The government itself says there is NO DATA on the transmissibility of Covid for anyone taking the vaxx.
And yet, that is the ONLY purpose listed to "justify" this EO.
I would point that out to management, and put the burden of proof on THEM to explain why they are insisting on pushing a mystery drug that has not been tested for safety or effectiveness, has not been approved by FDA (Comirnity is not available), when there is NO DATA showing effectiveness against transmissibility.
They KNOW that will set them up for a lawsuit if they follow through. They still might do it, but at least your are then in position to take action, if you want.
There ain't no "abracadabra" magic words. You have to stand up for yourself, and point out that the EO is based on fraud and misrepresentation, which means it is NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE.
"Fraud vitiates everything." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1878)