There is a difference between your anecdotal dozen and 10's of millions of tests on millions of different people.

Joel Kallman, Oracle Software Developer who Designed CDC Vaccine Tracking System, Is Dead 2 Months after Taking RNA Vaccine.

I’ve got to be tested before an outpatient procedure the end of the month, first and hopefully the last time!!!

I heard on the radio last week in an interview with a hospital worker that they were not allowed to claim any side effects after their vaccines were actually related to the vaccine. The true numbers were being suppressed and falsely attributed to anything but the vaccine. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But based on everything I've seen so far, including fudged death statistics, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

This is the scariest article I've read so far.
If this stands they will then use this ruling for anything they would want to force on us.
i.e. Collecting SS? Get a shot or loose your checks.

Per employment law, There are many things a private company can require of their employees as a condition of employment. Like not take drugs in off-work hours, not have a record, not say certain things on social media, or complete certain trainings not associated with job tasks. It’s a long list and has many times been judged to be legal. Historically, certain employers have also been able to require vaccinations, as long as the employer can show that such a mandate is “job-related and consistent with business necessity” or justified by a “direct threat” to the workforce. Industries that might fall into that category are those that have direct contact with the general public (grocery stores), healthcare settings (hospitals) and jobs that are performed in close quarters of others (factories)

The Supreme Court has held that States have similar rights when it comes to forcing vaccinations. All 50 states require students to be vaccinated before starting school, and every state has an exemption for cases of medical conditions that would make vaccines risky, like an immune disorder or cancer. Most states have the option for parents to opt out for religious reasons, and about half of states broaden that exemption to personal or philosophical reasons

While the Supreme Court authorized the states to pass these laws mandating vaccinations, it was in no way required for the states to do so. In the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws under the police power of the states. In the opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan explained that personal liberties might be suspended in cases where the interest of the “common good” of the community are of paramount importance.
The Court in Jacobson did, however, recognize that for some individuals a vaccine requirement could be harmful, creating room for medical exemptions where vaccines would be unduly harmful to the individual.

In a 1922, the Court further clarified in Zucht v. King that a school system could refuse admission to a student who did not meet vaccination requirements, and that this would not be in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for singling out a particular class of individuals.

Then in 1944, in Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court held that states may require vaccination regardless of a parent’s religious objection, stating that, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” This case made it clear that religious exemptions offered by states are elective, rather than mandated by the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion.

At this time, Federal authority on vaccines only applies to situations of national concern, such as the quarantine of foreign disease and regulation between states.

More lawsuits sure to come. And who knows what the democrats will try to do in Washington, D.C.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/whe ... come-from/

This is true BUT you knew that BEFORE you got hired/took the job. That way you already knew the score and it was 100% your choice whether or not you would want to work there.
This ruling is about changing company rules mid stream.
If you've got 10~20 years under your belt with the company and they come out with this "take it or you're fired", how does that even hold up in court?
Remember, this is an EXPERIMENTAL DRUG.
I know... something, something... their company their rules.

Employers write new conditions of employment all the time during normal situations of mergers and acquisitions, on top of changing laws and requirements according to regulations, drug laws, or simply changing management.

Most people's employment contract is "terminated at will" for either parties and they can bring up a new contract and it's your right to not sign it and they can also send you away with a standard severance package to find a new person.

This arguement only applies if you are a contractor or something where the agreement was a guaranteed period of time like a service or construction contract and you still performed your performance agreement but now your contractee wants a new health requirement that was never in the original contract for the period of time you signed up for. You then have ample right to refuse the new requirement or charge the person early termination fees because they terminated early without contractual cause.

Many companies are going for incentives to get the shot for exactly that reason, it's an experimental vaccine that has not been fully approved and the litigation potential (against private employers trying to require it, not the gov or pharma which are now legally exempt) is a total mystery. And given the new side effects that keep popping up I doubt many of them will change.

What IS problematic isn't necessarily the incentives, but that some are engaging in disincentives for people who won't get the vaccine but not firing them. This is basically workplace discrimination and all it takes is one person who can prove they can't get the shot due to a medical disability and the lawsuits will fly.

I get a lot of news from SkyNews Australia that is simply not covered here. Sad, but true.

This. Our news ignores a LARGE AMOUNT OF CONTENT. Rather disgusting and embarrassing.

The really sad part is the left (and right) low level sheep believe whatever comes across the air waves.
They don't put in the effort to find the truth.
It's hard enough for us here that try and try, only to get lied to.

Actually, case law is very clear that employers can require vaccinations. There are exceptions such as employees that are 100% virtual - forcing them to vaccinate wouldn’t hold up in court. The reason for incentives is to use a carrot and not a stick. New Employees are hard to find these days and the stick approach won’t help the morale of stressed out employees

Yes, I see that as well. The news aggregate site www.whatfinger.com has SkyNews Australia as well as a lot of other sites like that one. I rarely see Fox News runs these stories.