According to MSM, the Russians aren't even in Kyiv yet. They are just reaching the outskirts of the city in the last few hours. They also claim there were multiple strikes in Kharkiv yesterday, including strikes on multiple apartment buildings and a supermarket, with multiple civilian casualties. A large convoy of military vehicles have been making their way to Kyiv over the last several hours according to MSM, so I wouldn't expect to see "war" on a live cam. My office at work is right across from the breakroom, which blasts MSM all the time. I can't get away from it during the work day. Anyway, my point is I'm not surprised there's nothing on a live cam. No one within the MSM is even saying the Russians are in Kyiv yet.
This is stupid. Even the MSM is reporting the Russians aren't even IN Kiev yet.
The numbers you mention are what the MSM and the UN is reporting, but I don't think there's a way to really get an accurate count from a single source - the MSM and UN are reporting what Ukraine is telling them I think.
I'm sorry, but the Russians aren't even in Kiev yet according to MSM. MSM is showing attacks in other cities, not in Kiev. MSM has been showing a 40 mile long convoy on its way to Kiev - just reaching the outskirts of the city in the last few hours. The bombings were happening in Kharkiv yesterday, where MSM says multiple civilians were killed in strikes on apartments and a supermarket.
My office is across from the break room at work, where MSM is blaring 24/7. I can't escape it during the work day.
Even the MSM says troops are still 20km outside the city of Kyiv, so I'd think it would be too early to tell as far as traffic, panic in the streets or downed bridges/blocked roads. Just saying...
I seriously hope this isn't true. Otherwise, what an absolute monster! I just lost one of my dogs at the age of 16 a few months ago, and I'm still heartbroken.
What's the timing for this? They may be doing this because the OSHA ETS was pushed through, but the Supreme Court is hearing the case January 7th. If the SC stops the mandate, maybe they will back down?
My company has announced upcoming changes but also stated they are subject to how the OSHA ETS comes out. They're hoping they don't have to deal with any of it, and will only proceed with testing starting in February if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate.
Maybe it's the same for you?
My company is back to following the UA again as of this week. They don't mandate the vaccine, so weekly testing is supposed to start at the end of January now.
Do you work for a government contractor or an agency that utilizes Medicare/Medicaid funds? If so, these were separate mandates that are different than the OSHA ETS.
Still bullshit, but different bullshit.
my company has an office in India and I have several direct reports there. I've been told multiple times that the vaccine is being given BY the military to civilians. This looks fake to me.
It's the LAMBDA variant, not the llama variant.
You're most welcome! Good luck - hope everything works our for Bill. :)
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
And sorry for the MSM link - I happened to walk through the break room at work and this was being discussed on the news.
This is a tricky one. In the previous instance where Bill has an actual medical condition, Bill and other employees must be treated consistently. For example, an employer would want to require all employees to show proof, or no employees to show proof.
However, in this scenario there is no medical condition and they are just singling Bill out for for an unexplained reason. Ideally, employers should generally handle situations consistently and treat employees the same way. The reason for this is to avoid discrimination. But discrimination is only valid on the basis of age, gender, religion, race, national origin, disability, veteran status, etc. under federal law. In this specific scenario, it doesn't seem like any of those apply. In other words, in order for Bill to have a gender discrimination case, Bill would have to show that only all the males were required to provide proof. Therefore, Bill has been discriminated against. In the scenario where Bill just wants to not wear a mask, I can't find a way to legitimately apply discrimination laws.
Given that, I hesitate to provide advice other than the suggest you contact an attorney for guidance. It's clear the employer SHOULDN'T be singling out Bill, and I WANT to scream that it's discrimination because it certainly smells of it; but when I try to apply that to an event or reason that would stick for litigation in an at will state, I struggle to connect Bill's situation to grounds or standing to sue. Privacy comes to mind, for example, as it's an invasion of Bill's privacy to single out him alone to provide proof. But it does not violate any law in an at-will state. It's incredibly shitty, but not necessary illegal.
It definitely isn't ethical, but they may have found a loophole that's technically legal. I'm not sure. But it's terrible and I assure you I would NEVER treat employees that I support in my company this way. I'm afraid you've reached my level of legal expertise on the previous question, and I would not want to be responsible for misleading you. You need to talk to an attorney at this point.
Oh, and as for the Nuremberg code question, I have not seen any legal authority weigh in on this. The EEOC and Dept of Labor are silent completely on it, and employment law lawyers for companies are saying that avenue of argument is BS. I don't know if they're right or not, but that's what they are telling us (I've heard this from multiple law firms who represent my company directly). What it will take to determine that is case law. I haven't spent a ton of time looking into it myself yet, but I have not yet found any lawsuits on the books where employees are suing employers and using the Nuremburg code in their arguments and winning. There may be cases on the books that haven't progressed far enough yet, or I may just not be looking hard enough. But that's what I'm seeing so far.
I am a VP of HR, and here are my thoughts. You are correct that bill does not have the high ground since there's a two option decision to make. Bill can, however, go the medical exemption route. If a medical exemption is not approved (assuming bill does have a bona fide health condition that warrants an exemption) and bill is fired, the employer would be the one liable to prove they did not fire bill because of his medical condition. Yes, Bill lives in a right to work state, but the employer still must not discriminate against Bill based on his medical condition because that is against federal and state law, and they better be able to prove they fired him for a non-discriminatory reason. If the employer cannot do that, then the employer is liable for discrimination. Legally, Bill actually has the burden of proof to show the employer did fire him for a discriminatory reason, and that is what lawyers would tell bill - but how it ACTUALLY works in a law suit is that if the employer can't show proof of firing Bill for a non-discriminatory reason instead, discrimination is assumed valid and the employer loses the law suit. Or realizes they will lose and settles with Bill out of court before a trial.
This is true. It was allowed in the US beginning in the 90's because of a Supreme Court case about first amendment speech.
Honestly, I bought the pillows and I think they're TERRIBLE. So bad I threw them out. Still glad I bought them to support Mike Lindell, but they're honestly the worst pillows I've ever used. They're basically made of chopped up memory foam. I found them to be lumpy and too firm.
I haven't tried the sheets or doggie beds yet, but I'm planning to.
I'm so deeply sorry you are feeling this kind of loss. I can't imagine how heartbreaking it must be.
Sending hugs and prayers that God will ease your pain.
Truly disgusting.
I can't say what any company would or would not accept as a reason. It might be worth a try!
It's not my favorite, either. But due to my proximity to the breakroom tvs at work, I can't escape. Ear buds or headphones are my friends on particularly obnoxious days. The "war" coverage is interesting at least. To be taken with massive grains of salt, but still interesting to compare to non-MSM news for similarities, differences and patterns.