What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rick Dennison - Vikings coach role may change due to not getting vaccine (1 Viewer)

AAABatteries

AAABatteries

Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Two thoughts:

1. I'd rather see the NFL offer an "opt out" policy like they did for players in 2020.

2. I have no idea if Dennison (or Patriots coach Cole Popovich) cited a religious exemption for refusing the vaccine, but if the NFL is going to offer that option (and and they did), then such exemptions should be granted universally.

 
[scooter] said:
Two thoughts:

1. I'd rather see the NFL offer an "opt out" policy like they did for players in 2020.

2. I have no idea if Dennison (or Patriots coach


Cole


Popovich) cited a religious exemption for refusing the vaccine, but if the NFL is going to offer that option (and  and they did), then such exemptions should be granted universally.
Click to expand...
I agree with this take, especially #1.  Why are coaches getting let go but players get to opt out?  That seems wholly unfair and I see lawsuits galore in the near future.

There is absolutely no way someone like Pat Mahomes is let go from the team if he refuses to vaccinate.

 
BladeRunner said:
I agree with this take, especially #1.  Why are coaches getting let go but players get to opt out?  That seems wholly unfair and I see lawsuits galore in the near future.

There is absolutely no way someone like Pat Mahomes is let go from the team if he refuses to vaccinate.
Click to expand...
How bout the coaches are a dime a dozen and can easily be replaced, while the players can not.

 
AAABatteries said:
Offensive line coach Rick Dennison for the Vikings is let go after refusing to get the vaccine

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31869652/rick-dennison-minnesota-vikings-assistant-refusing-covid-19-vaccine-sources-say%3fplatform=amp

I know this will turn political so starting this here.  It will be interesting as we hear more and more of these stories.  I’m assuming once FDA approval happens it will become more frequent.
Click to expand...
I am pro-vac but This is more than a little troublesome.  Dennison will have big time lawyers begging him to retain them.  And he/they will win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat said:
I am pro-vac but This is more than a little troublesome.  Dennison will have big time lawyers begging him to retain them.  And he/they will win.
Click to expand...
How will they win?  Honestly..:it seems his employer has the right based on what I have read to do this.  So why will they win?

 
Is the guy canned or are they working it out still. Hearing different reports.

Like any job if this guy is talented enough they will figure something out. If not he’ll be looking for work somewhere else. 

 
BladeRunner said:
I agree with this take, especially #1.  Why are coaches getting let go but players get to opt out?  That seems wholly unfair and I see lawsuits galore in the near future.

There is absolutely no way someone like Pat Mahomes is let go from the team if he refuses to vaccinate.
Click to expand...
Simply put, the CBA.  The players are a union and function under different rules then team personnel who are employees of the team owner and not a union.  

 
The General said:
Is the guy canned or are they working it out still. Hearing different reports.

Like any job if this guy is talented enough they will figure something out. If not he’ll be looking for work somewhere else. 
Click to expand...
He's not.  Dennison has been riding Kubiak's coattails for decades.  

 
I'm far from understanding law like many here.

With many saying the team would easily win any case brought by someone fired for not getting the vaccine is the basic premise that companies can do what they want here?

They mandate an employee do something they deem necessary and if the employee refuses, they can fire without repurcussions?

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm far from understanding law like many here.

With many saying the team would easily win any case brought by someone fired for not getting the vaccine is the basic premise that companies can do what they want here?

They mandate an employee do something they deem necessary and if the employee refuses, they can fire without repurcussions?
Click to expand...
I’m like you and have no legal expertise but I would think that the NFL teams would be in a unique situation because of the Covid policies put in place.  There’s a pretty easy argument to be made that this coach not getting the vaccine could directly hurt them on the field and financially.  I think if my company required vaccines because if I didn’t get one it could directly hurt the company that they would be in their rights to let me go.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm far from understanding law like many here.

With many saying the team would easily win any case brought by someone fired for not getting the vaccine is the basic premise that companies can do what they want here?

They mandate an employee do something they deem necessary and if the employee refuses, they can fire without repurcussions?
Click to expand...
Depends on state, but can't companies fire employees at any given time for any reason, beyond protected classes: race, age, religion, etc?  

Vaccination status is not a protected class.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm far from understanding law like many here.

With many saying the team would easily win any case brought by someone fired for not getting the vaccine is the basic premise that companies can do what they want here?

They mandate an employee do something they deem necessary and if the employee refuses, they can fire without repurcussions?
Click to expand...
Linked below is the opinion from Lynn Hughes, the federal judge who ruled in the case where Houston Methodist employees challenged the hospital’s vaccine requirement.  It is short and pithy and provides a response to your question. I’ve appeared before Judge Hughes on several occasions and he is always quick to get to the point. 

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4:2021cv01774/1830373/18/0.pdf?ts=1623564908

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
What if your vaccination status is tied to your religion?
Click to expand...
It was pointed out a few posts before yours

In a memo earlier this year, the NFL said Tier 1 individuals (excluding players) should be vaccinated unless they have a medical or religious reason for not doing so. Employees who refuse vaccination without either reason will not be eligible for Tier 1 status and many not work directly with players.

 
dawgtrails said:
It was pointed out a few posts before yours

In a memo earlier this year, the NFL said Tier 1 individuals (excluding players) should be vaccinated unless they have a medical or religious reason for not doing so. Employees who refuse vaccination without either reason will not be eligible for Tier 1 status and many not work directly with players.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t all coaches and players just claim a religious exemption?

 
dawgtrails said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
Why wouldn’t all coaches and players just claim a religious exemption?
Click to expand...
Because not everyone is a liar?
Click to expand...
Also - I don't think it is as simple as just stating your religious exemption. I imagine the team would look into any claim. If their kids go to public schools I am sure that they are vaccinated and unless they applied for a religious exemption for them, that would put them in a tough spot. Same goes if they travelled to any obscure international place in the past several years that encourage/require and vaccinations. 

 
bigbottom said:
This is a good article on the topic. 

Employers Guide to the Religious Exemption for the COVID-19 Vaccine
Click to expand...
Thanks.  It seems as though an employer can offer religious exemptions but then apply them at will so it's not really a protected class.  As someone who has seen some pretty severe side effects up close, I just have a hard time forcing people to do something to their body they aren't comfortable with.  Seems like the medical exemption (and finding a good doctor) is easier than the religious one

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Thanks.  It seems as though an employer can offer religious exemptions but then apply them at will so it's not really a protected class.  As someone who has seen some pretty severe side effects up close, I just have a hard time forcing people to do something to their body they aren't comfortable with.  Seems like the medical exemption (and finding a good doctor) is easier than the religious one
Click to expand...
"Condition of employment" isn't the same as "forcing".  Do you have an issue with employers requiring mandatory drug tests?  Do you have an issue with employers requiring mandatory uniforms or a dress code?

 
Rich Conway said:
"Condition of employment" isn't the same as "forcing".  Do you have an issue with employers requiring mandatory drug tests?  Do you have an issue with employers requiring mandatory uniforms or a dress code?
Click to expand...
A condition of employment is basically forcing someone since you need to work to pay bills and what not.  Don't be obtuse.

And no, I don't have a problem with making someone urinate in a cup to prove they aren't on drugs or if there is a dress code.  If you want to explain how either of those remotely compare to forcing someone to inject something into their body, I'll reconsider my stance though.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
A condition of employment is basically forcing someone since you need to work to pay bills and what not.  Don't be obtuse.

And no, I don't have a problem with making someone urinate in a cup to prove they aren't on drugs or if there is a dress code.  If you want to explain how either of those remotely compare to forcing someone to inject something into their body, I'll reconsider my stance though.
Click to expand...
They are conditions of employment, as is vaccination status.  Would you be opposed to a company requiring vaccination against measles or mumps, or is it just COVID that bugs you?

The right generally tends to argue that if one doesn't like one's job, there is a free market and the opportunity to find another one.  The right also generally tends to argue that employers should be free to make their own rules.  Both of those stances seem to contradict your stance here.

 
getting the shot is a personal health choice - the NFL is now in the business of infringing on freedoms? wow ... maybe they'll make players stand for the anthem now or be fired ?

I hope Dennison sues and gets tens of millions in damages 

 
Stealthycat said:
so if the NFL said conditions of employment means standing for national anthem - that's not infringing on freedoms ?
Click to expand...
For coaches, no.  It could be slightly different for players, in that the conditions of employment for players are governed by the CBA, but assuming there is no conflict with the language already existing in the CBA, then no.

 
Rich Conway said:
They are conditions of employment, as is vaccination status.  Would you be opposed to a company requiring vaccination against measles or mumps, or is it just COVID that bugs you?

The right generally tends to argue that if one doesn't like one's job, there is a free market and the opportunity to find another one.  The right also generally tends to argue that employers should be free to make their own rules.  Both of those stances seem to contradict your stance here.
Click to expand...
Why are you assigning my stance with "the right"?   Yes, I'm against forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

You seem pretty supportive of employer's conditions of employment. Would you be okay if one was "cannot be gay" or "must be white"?

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the support for forcing vaccinations is for the betterment of the public in general.  Well, forcing abortions unless someone proves they have the means to parent a child would be for the betterment of society too.  You down with doing that?  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Why are you assigning my stance with "the right"?   Yes, I'm against forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

You seem pretty supportive of employer's conditions of employment. Would you be okay if one was "cannot be gay" or "must be white"?

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the support for forcing vaccinations is for the betterment of the public in general.  Well, forcing abortions unless someone proves they have the means to parent a child would be for the betterment of society too.  You down with doing that?  
Click to expand...
They're assigning your stance with the right because such a large percentage of unvaccinated are from the right.

As far as your examples of "employer's conditions of employment"...  Please be a better person than this.

As far as your "forcing abortions" to support your argument... Please see above.

 
Prinefan said:
They're assigning your stance with the right because such a large percentage of unvaccinated are from the right.

As far as your examples of "employer's conditions of employment"...  Please be a better person than this.

As far as your "forcing abortions" to support your argument... Please see above.
Click to expand...
So you want to apply your moral standards to everyone?  I'll be a better person in your eyes when you become a more consistent person in my eyes.  Deal?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Why are you assigning my stance with "the right"?   Yes, I'm against forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

You seem pretty supportive of employer's conditions of employment. Would you be okay if one was "cannot be gay" or "must be white"?

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the support for forcing vaccinations is for the betterment of the public in general.  Well, forcing abortions unless someone proves they have the means to parent a child would be for the betterment of society too.  You down with doing that?  
Click to expand...
1. I didn't assign your stance with "the right", but it's not exactly a secret that you're politically aligned with "the right".

2. Obviously, "cannot be gay" and "must be white" aren't legal conditions of employment, as race and sexuality are both protected classes.

3. I am personally in favor of vaccinations because it is good for all of us, including me, that more people get vaccinated.  In the case of an employer requiring vaccinations, there's an obvious financial motive.  More vaccinated employees means lower risk of time missed due to sickness.  In this specific case, it means lower risk of games being cancelled, which is also a huge financial driver.

4. I'll ignore your last question as it has nothing to do anything.

5. I notice you haven't answered certain questions asked to you, such as whether you would be opposed to employers requiring vaccinations against measles or mumps.

6. You, and others here, seem to be conflating "legal" with "good idea" and "above criticism".  It's clearly legal for the Vikings to do this.  You are, of course, free to criticize them for the decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
1. I didn't assign your stance with "the right", but it's not exactly a secret that you're politically aligned with "the right".

2. Obviously, "cannot be gay" and "must be white" aren't legal conditions of employment, as race and sexuality are both protected classes.

3. I am personally in favor of vaccinations because it is good for all of us, including me, that more people get vaccinated.  In the case of an employer requiring vaccinations, there's an obvious financial motive.  More vaccinated employees means lower risk of time missed due to sickness.  In this specific case, it means lower risk of games being cancelled, which is also a huge financial driver.

4. I'll ignore your last question as it has nothing to do anything.

5. I notice you haven't answered certain questions asked to you, such as whether you would be opposed to employers requiring vaccinations against measles or mumps.

6. You, and others here, seem to be conflating "legal" with "good idea" and "above criticism".  It's clearly legal for the Vikings to do this.  You are, of course, free to criticize them for the decision.
Click to expand...
I answered your question. You ignored mine.  Have a great day

 
Rich Conway said:
For coaches, no.  It could be slightly different for players, in that the conditions of employment for players are governed by the CBA, but assuming there is no conflict with the language already existing in the CBA, then no.
Click to expand...
do you know what the CBA says about shots/vaccines etc that are not FDA approved ?  or if the NFL can make say "you're fired' if a player doesn't perform a  personal health decision that the league wants them to ?

did the players union ever agree to the mandatory covid shot ? I don't know, I'm asking

 
Maybe I'm the only one, but I have an issue with mandating a vaccine under EUA.  There is a reason for that status and a reason for fully approved status.  

One a vaccine is fully approved I can see my way toward a mandatory edict.  At this point I can't see it.

 
Stealthycat said:
do you know what the CBA says about shots/vaccines etc that are not FDA approved ?  or if the NFL can make say "you're fired' if a player doesn't perform a  personal health decision that the league wants them to ?

did the players union ever agree to the mandatory covid shot ? I don't know, I'm asking
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether any of this is covered by the existing CBA language.  I would apply the same logic, though.  Assuming there's nothing in the CBA preventing the NFL from requiring vaccinations, I'm fine with it being added as a condition of employment.  Ditto mandatory standing for the anthem (I don't know if anything in the CBA would conflict with this, either).

 
Wait until the GOP turns on the unvaccinated.  If the NFL is there for economic reasons today you can bet Republicans will be there soon enough.

At any rate, progress.  We're starting to see some of the people who've imposed such enormous external costs on society pay a price for the damage they're causing.  More of that please.

 
Stealthycat said:
do you know what the CBA says about shots/vaccines etc that are not FDA approved ?  or if the NFL can make say "you're fired' if a player doesn't perform a  personal health decision that the league wants them to ?

did the players union ever agree to the mandatory covid shot ? I don't know, I'm asking
Click to expand...
Couldn't use of HGH be a personal health decision?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
So you want to apply your moral standards to everyone?  I'll be a better person in your eyes when you become a more consistent person in my eyes.  Deal?
Click to expand...
Not just my moral standards.  It's basic human decency.  So, exactly how am I being inconsistent in your eyes?  If I actually am inconsistent and it offends you, then I'd like to apologize.  It's something people with a sense of basic human decency do.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
Can you please elaborate in more detail what you mean on this? 
Click to expand...
I mean that people who refuse the vaccine are imposing enormous costs on the US.  Even at just current rates, another ~100k people will die in the next year (250/day).

If everyone were vaxxed today COVID would be all but *gone*.  Cases would still pop up but the virus would have so much trouble spreading that it would close to die out.  Why is it acceptable that it's not happened?

And maybe society can't *require* you to get vaxxed across the board, but airlines, school systems, event venues, employers and everyone else in a similar position can raise the costs of that decision, putting some of the burden back on the refusers.

 
Sand said:
Maybe I'm the only one, but I have an issue with mandating a vaccine under EUA.  There is a reason for that status and a reason for fully approved status.  

One a vaccine is fully approved I can see my way toward a mandatory edict.  At this point I can't see it.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this, but the problem is that the FDA is just hopelessly behind the curve on vaccines.  We've know that the vaccines were safe since last fall, and nobody who knows what they're talking about seriously disputes their efficacy.  In a sane world, the vaccines would all be fully approved and we'd be talking about to what degree they should be mandatory.  The only reason why they're not approved yet is because the FDA is the Platonic embodiment of risk aversion and CYA-oriented policymaking.

Maybe a better way to put is that, at this point, everybody in the US is very, very strongly pro-vaccination except:

1) anti-vaxxers. 

2) FDA policy makers.

If any of us took the FDA seriously, that should be a huge wakeup call that maybe the rest of us are getting over our skis and maybe that anti-vaxxers are the ones who actually have the science on our side.  But of course, we (me included) reject that conclusion out of hand because none of us really take the FDA seriously. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I mean that people who refuse the vaccine are imposing enormous costs on the US.  Even at just current rates, another ~100k people will die in the next year (250/day).

If everyone were vaxxed today COVID would be all but *gone*.  Cases would still pop up but the virus would have so much trouble spreading that it would close to die out.  Why is it acceptable that it's not happened?

And maybe society can't *require* you to get vaxxed across the board, but airlines, school systems, event venues, employers and everyone else in a similar position can raise the costs of that decision, putting some of the burden back on the refusers.
Click to expand...
As it should be.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I mean that people who refuse the vaccine are imposing enormous costs on the US.  Even at just current rates, another ~100k people will die in the next year (250/day).

If everyone were vaxxed today COVID would be all but *gone*.  Cases would still pop up but the virus would have so much trouble spreading that it would close to die out.  Why is it acceptable that it's not happened?

And maybe society can't *require* you to get vaxxed across the board, but airlines, school systems, event venues, employers and everyone else in a similar position can raise the costs of that decision, putting some of the burden back on the refusers.
Click to expand...
I've not followed this closely. Airlines are requiring vaccinations? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prinefan said:
Not just my moral standards.  It's basic human decency.  So, exactly how am I being inconsistent in your eyes?  If I actually am inconsistent and it offends you, then I'd like to apologize.  It's something people with a sense of basic human decency do.  
Click to expand...
It's human decency to force someone to inject themselves with something they aren't comfortable with?  Especially when there are side effects and everyone reacts differently to drugs?  Shouldn't that be an individual decision to take that risk?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
1K
Prinefan
P
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
781
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top