I run the tech department for a small company in NJ. I can do the overwhelming majority of my job remotely and have some on-site bodies that i can instruct to do things if necessary.
With that said, the company recently sent out a mandate that everyone - regardless if they go into the office or not - has to get this at home virus kit and then send it in. If they do not send the test back, they cannot go to work.
Fortunately, I'm salaried and can probably ride most of this out by just not going on site. But my question is, is it legal to force people to have medical testing and/or the eventual vaccination in order to return to work?
I'm full on happy capitalist and will accept the answer that "a private company has the right to ask their employees to do whatever they want, you can get another job if you don't want to comply". I am in the process of getting that going as we speak.
I'm getting the paperwork going and will have an LLC filed so i can start offering consulting services instead. If my boss likes me that much, and doesn't want to lose me but cannot treat employees unfairly, he can 1099 me.
Where do you all sit on this? Any NJ law pedes dealing with this kind of stuff right now?
Of course they can. Can they institute pre-employment drug tests? --Yes
Can they perform "random" drug tests after you're employed? --Yes
There's your precedent.
I find it ironic that one of the horrors I've personally railed about for 30+ years (the War On Some Drugs) is ultimately the cog in the machine that gets the "law-abiding normal people" (LOL) strung up by their toes. While formerly "illegal" drugs are being legalized all over the country. Hardy-har-har, Too bad, so sad.
People need to read their history and learn their lessons. The Left has.
Remember, every time a citizenry "fought back" against totalitarianism--it was because they had nothing left to lose.
Ever read "Nudge" by Cass Sunstein? They're not going to break down your doors and take away your rights and possessions...they're going to slowly make all of those things very uncomfortable to keep. You will willingly give them up.
Want to travel? You must have a vaccine.
Want to work at a good job? You must give up your guns.
You really want to keep your guns? OK-here's the multi-million dollar insurance policy you have to have...oh, you can't afford it? No company is offering such a policy? Tsk, tsk.
Want to own a home? You must surrender your privacy "rights" and agree to 24/7 monitoring. Hey, you'll get a discount on your electricity bill!
Don't think so? Look at how many people that (are forced to) buy car insurance that have the insurance company monitoring their driving...for a discount! Be safe, comrade!
On and on and on it will go.
Again, people only revolt when everything's been taken from them, and they have nothing or very little left to lose.
Most of us have a lot to lose (jobs, cars, houses, families, etc.) and will willingly give up some "rights" in order to keep what we already have...as they slowly "Nudge" you into compliance and silence. Your protests will fall upon deaf ears. The Media Establishment will ignore you. You speak out against this? You're now the local crank.
Again, history and human nature. It's going to have to get a LOT worse before there's any sign of it getting better. And as long as its a slow, incremental surrender, nobody will notice. If fact, most will welcome it.
Sorry, I don't make the rules.
You do make some great points there.
They can, of course find ways to get it going. The question is if anyone is aware - at their fingertips - of some specific HIPAA things that one could at least get a nice severance for.
I still believe in freedom and liberty. I still believe if i don't like what the company is doing, i can just get another job. If i don't like my state, i can move. Those things are certainly being considered.
Travel/etc could get worse.
If i am good at what i do, and i am organized, I won't be latched to this one company. I know that i am not. But we're talking about the difference between theoretical ideas and the possibility of having a different avenue of defense.
Thank you for your input either way.