Part II - How Human Resources Has Disgraced Itself in the Global Crime Against Humanity Age known as the "COV!D" Era
How Cooperation With That Which is Known to be Unlawful (and indecent) Has Disgraced the Profession
In yesterday’s post, I provided context for the obligations and restrictions under both employment law and civil rights law for those in the Human Resources (HR) profession. I gave a few examples of what we had to do and more importantly, what we could not do in our interactions with candidates and employees.
Picking up where I left off, I ask the question: How could it possibly come to pass that those who live and die by employment and civil rights law would, en masse, cooperate with such eye-watering violations of them? Over what we’re told is a respiratory infection?
Why Are They’re Still Cooperating?
Where is HR leadership? Where was HR leadership all along, but especially when a demented, babbling fool “ordered” the forced medication of federal contractors? As much as I hate the snot pouches, this goes far beyond that. Here we have one guy telling millions of people the “choice” they will make to keep well…or lose their jobs. Of course, in this case this medication doesn’t even do that, but even if it did, who ITA (in the actual) you-know-what is this clown to tell you what medicine you have to take??
It was bad enough when HR conceded ground and decency when they obeyed their governors’ “mandates” requiring employees to don snot pouches. These things — a form of “source control” just like sneezing into your elbow or covering your nose and mouth with a tissue — assumes that we’re all “carriers” even while “asymptomatic.” (Sidebar: A judge in Florida “ruled” that snot pouches were not a medical intervention. Making people wear them was like prohibiting smoking indoors, he declared. So, non-stop interference with normal respiration while collecting snot, moisture, and bacteria is not a medical intervention and compares to banning smoking in the workplace..? Face palm…I mean, honestly, you just can’t make this up.)
With obedience and “thinking” like that judge’s, we moved to the inevitable: Forced “vaccination.” A former colleague still in the recruiting “biz” struggles daily with the requirements of her current employer, a federal contractor, to require proof of “COV!D-19” “vaccination.” This person and her boss know about the revelations made on Oct 10, 2022 in the EU parliament by Pfizer marketing executive, Janine Small. With her face hanging out, she almost chuckled through her admission that they never tested their junk for its ability to stop transmission. She confirms what so many of us knew.
The “Small” admission comes on top of Frau Fancy Scarf’s1 initial lie back in December 2020 — “…the most highly-effective vaccines we have…” — to the July 2022 cover-her-a$$ “admission” that she “knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection.”
And what do we get from “Human” Resources? Crickets. Hear ‘em? Crickets chirping away in the hallowed halls of Human Resource departments all across the fruited plain.
No pushback from HR at all. Just ongoing insistence upon unnecessary, unwanted, unlawful medical interventions that fail at doing what it is that forms the entire basis for the requirement to get injected!! On top of defiance in the face of lawful requests for accommodation?? That’s “Human” Resources in the age of “COV!D.” What an absolute disgrace.
No Employer Can Make You Eat Cake
Neither can they ask you as a candidate any of these other illegal interview questions. Yet in today’s world while these questions remain illegal, employers obey orders to make you get a shot? Or they decide on their own to dictate what medicine you must take to remain on the payroll? Or they decide when they’ll deign to accommodate a lawful request for a religious accommodation? Or never do so and just not bother to tell you why?
To provide evidence that at least one person — aside from me — in HR knows that what they are doing is wrong — I asked someone I’ve known for years in the profession at a management level the following:
“If anyone had told either one of us, say five years ago, that the day would come when we would, as a part of the hiring process, ask about private medical information, would we have believed them? Would either one of us have believed that we would demand a medical intervention as a condition of hiring and ongoing employment? Would we have believed that our profession would sink so low?””
After a long pause, this person finally answered with a quiet:
“No. No, we wouldn’t…”
No, that’s right. We wouldn’t have believed them. Yet here we are.
I’ll tell you this: If this person knows this violates the law and good HR practice, so does every single other HR person who has more than five minutes’ experience in the profession. So do all the HR associations that represent the profession, regardless of what the EEOC cooked up to provide cover for these violations because…“virus.” Even they know the law protects the rights of workers.
Just as a side note, the demographic breakdown of these HR workers? Overwhelmingly female…Just sayin’.
What Does Title VII Say?
“Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination protects people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. But not only them. It also protects people who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs but do not belong to a traditional, organized religion. Religion is broadly defined under Title VII. A religious belief does not require a belief in God or any deity. A sincerely held religious belief can be one held by only a single person.
Title VII’s protection of religion requires something more than mere nondiscrimination. (Bold/italics added.) Like the ADA, Title VII requires an employer to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices and observances unless an accommodation would cause undue hardship. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. A bona fide, sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with an employer policy requiring an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must be accommodated in the absence of undue hardship. One possible accommodation would be exemption from the vaccination requirement, although other accommodations are possible, as discussed below. An employer may require an employee to explain how their religious beliefs prohibit them from being vaccinated, but it cannot require confirmation from a religious leader such as a minister, priest, rabbi or imam.
What Counts as Religion or Religious Belief?
On one hand, religious beliefs protected by Title VII include beliefs in the existence of a divine power as well as “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” See 29 CFR § 1605.1. But in successful claims under Title VII, “religion” has typically concerned ideas about the meaning of life and death, the afterlife and the soul. And in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation, religion is “comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching.”2
So, according to Title VII, even atheists have a right to a religious accommodation? Indeed they do. How about that? And we all are entitled to have explained to us the “undue hardship” a religious accommodation would cause our employer.
Remarkable, isn’t it, how a respiratory infection can make people ignore decades of employment law and simple courtesy. That’s some powerful virus there.
Playing For The Other Team
Yet what do we see in “America?” In addition to HR playing for the other team, we have the “loi-yuhs” also playing for Team Evil acting as back-up to HR. (One of my Brooklyn-born aunts would always say “lawyer” with that exaggerated affectation that made it sound like “loi-yuh.” Can you guess how she felt about them?)
As the above article notes (footnoted below), the only way a company can get out of making reasonable accommodation is if they can prove “undue hardship.” What does that mean? Well, it means that if they can show that by making a religious accommodation, it interferes with productivity, adds prohibitive costs, or some other “hardship,” the company might be able to deny the accommodation. Read what the article says the company must do first before it can claim “undue hardship.”
Fordham Law School to Rescue!
Now, for companies that struggle to prove “undue hardship” in their efforts to deny religious accommodation for those who choose other means for staying healthy besides an injected experimental concoction without long-term safety data deploying “technology” never before used in humans that fails to prevent transmission and constitutes gene therapy with complete liability immunity for the manufacturers in the case of injury or death — all in the absence of informed consent — Fordham Law School to the rescue, everybody!
The first sentence in this insulting piece of tripe is a lie. The writer then admits — almost sadly — that “technically” Title VII limits the ability of employers to force injections on their employees. She laments calls for stricter guidelines that would make claiming undue hardship harder. Clearly, she thinks this is a shame. Damn those “technicalities!”
In the quote below from the article, Ms. Whatever Her Name Is reveals her true self, her infidelity to human freedom, Fordham Law School’s infidelity to the Constitution, and the quality of current legal training in America:
“…it (the calls for stricter hardship standards) may impair the ability of employers to mandate vaccines and, in turn, negatively affect public health. This Note argues that employers will not be required to provide religious accommodations to employer-mandated vaccines, even under the most employee-friendly version of the standard proposed. Nevertheless, any change to the standard should address the issue of vaccine mandates specifically to encourage employers to adopt vaccine mandates without voluntarily providing religious accommodations.”
“…may impair the ability of employers to mandate vaccines”…? “Voluntarily” providing religious accommodation? I find it hard to even know what to say here.
Guarding “Public Health” vs. “Duty of Care”
Can this person, Ms. Whatever Her Name Is, please point me to the law that requires companies to guard “public health?” There is no such law and they have no such responsibility. They do have what is known as “duty of care,” but duty of care does not include keeping people from getting respiratory infections. It does not include “rules” restricting their behavior to avoid sexually transmitted diseases or keeping tabs on their diet to keep their weigh in check, etc., etc. If duty of care meant this, why, employers would be able to ask all sorts of personal questions about choices people make outside of work…and you know where I’m going with this…
“Can you tell us a bit about your sex life?” HR
“I’m sorry…what?” Normal person
“How many times a week do you eat pizza?” HR
“I’m sorry…what does my diet have to do with doing this job?” Normal person
“Well, we know these choices have an impact on public health and we have a duty of care, so we just need to know so we can advise our employees on what medicines to take and what foods to eat and avoid to help keep everyone safe and healthy…” HR
“I’m sorry…What in the actual?? Normal person who gets up and leaves the interview and proceeds to report the company to the EEOC, his/her state anti-discrimination commission, his/her lawyer, social media, etc., etc.
Exaggerating to make the point…but really not so much. When AIDS first came onto the scene, this is exactly the kind of discrimination that scores of gay men endured. It became so widespread that the Americans With Disabilities Act added HIV/AIDS to its list of protected disabilities.
Speaking of duty of care, this is the real responsibility companies have to act in ways that avoid injuries or accidents to employees and customers. So where were the FAA’s HR pros when it came time to force the above-named experimental concoction on commercial airline pilots? Hmm?
This edict directly violated the FAA’s own guidelines for the use of non-approved pharmaceuticals as outlined in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations §61.53. This regulation clearly prohibits the use of any medication approved and on the market for less than 12 months. These concoctions under an Emergency Use Authorization get forced on airline pilots?? Did anyone in HR at the FAA say a word???
Cue those crickets.
Just One Woman’s Opinion
I’m not one of “TheExperts™.” I’m just a former practitioner with a couple of decades of experience in the field and a “few” years of prior management experience. So, if anyone out there in Human Resources cares to correct any of what I’ve written in either Part I or Part II, please have at it. I will gladly publicly admit what I got wrong. In the meantime, I stand by what I’ve written. I could go on writing, but the situation is so pathetic and so personally enraging that I can hardly stand it.
I hope I’ve provided sufficient documentation for my assertions regarding the abject failure of Human Resources during the Global Crime Against Humanity known as the “COV!D” era. By providing personal experience and examples, I wanted to help you understand just how egregious these violations in the name of “COV!D” have been. I wanted to show what a setback these assaults represent to the workplace.
HR wanted its seat at the table. They got it, but what have they done with it? The HR profession — that overflows with women — has disgraced itself via its silence, via its cooperation with the use of force, through its rejection of fully informed consent, its defiance of federal law, and the dismissal of common sense and common decency. What an absolute disgrace.
Deborah Birx, Trump Administration White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator
https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2021/10/an-in-depth-look-at-religious-exemptions-from-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/
In rejecting my religious accommodation request, my former employer avoided the question altogether with the simple statement: "We do not believe that this is a situation where we are required to make an exception to our policy." Because I was incredibly uncomfortable attaching my sincerely held religious belief to a medical decision, though part of my sincerely held religious belief was that I need to balance the risk and benefit specific to me, I had originally applied for medical accommodation. My medical doctor, who knew my medical history intimately, including my history (and family history) of autoimmune disease, prior COVID infection and several miscarriages, advised against vaccination. Their response to that was: "Natural immunity has not yet been recognized as a contraindication for getting vaccinated....[While your doctor says you have a health condition for which vaccine is contraindicated], CDC does not recognize any health conditions unrelated to allergic reactions which support exemption from the vaccine." They made that denial without any specific inquiry regarding my medical records.
So, to them, without explanation, my request for medical accommodation was not valid because the CDC had not provided their stamp of approval to my doctor's informed judgment. And my request for religious accommodation was (I must speculate because they provided no explanation) not sincere? Regardless, they never analyzed whether it would require undue hardship because they concluded they didn't have to do so.
God has a plan in all of this, and I will never apologize for following the incredibly clear direction God gave me.
Thanks for speaking truth.
Well done. I used to be in Operations and worked closely with HR. Yes, mostly women. I still have friends in HR. I've asked pointed questions about this. I never get a clear answer - they say something along the lines of having to advocate for their employer and don't have a say in policy. Astounding. They don't even pretend that they advocate for employees anymore. Like most 'professions' today, they are a joke, and with few exceptions, employ any self-reflection. Because of course if they did - they couldn't cash that paycheck.