Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

People are trying to detract from the person in the check in stating that they had serious medical complications by making arguments about other topics. This is the original comment discussing it.

"Cisco to the person who was hospitalized --> File for workers comp

A bridge to possible, lifelong complications"

They are trying to distract from the fact that an employee spoke up about serious medical complications are taking their first shot over this mandate. And Cisco recommended them to file a workers comp case. There were people in the chat talking about alternative medications to potentially treat and prevent Covid and their opinions on the legality if the Executive Order, but not the person that reported side effects requiring medical intervention.

Ever wonder why the US is the only country that doesn't recognize natural immunity? Is it a coincidence that dr-g companies make vastly more money this way?

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Is there some magic number/cap/% that the Fed mandate dictates? Trying to understand (other than hassle) why there would be denial of requested accommodations assuming they are legit?

You are a 1%er. 99% of the public believe you are nuts.
ivermectin has not been approved for treatment of COVID AND it would still be better to get a vaccination.

The EO until overturned has the weight of law and Cisco(and others) are following the law.

Just nuts on the third note.

So Cisco has 15,000 that are not vaccinated (just a wild guess that 80% are vaccinated as that pretty much looks like the overall population above 30 years of age). Looking at the rate of adverse effect of the vaccine on 15,000 people it looks like 1 people on average would have any issue as it take 20X that number before you would (on average) see a doctor for an adverse reaction.

BOD needs to can Chuckie and Frannie. They have shown their utter incompetence in how they have managed the mandate.

"People have had severe complications and some have died from the vaccine, and yet there are slimebags who make jokes about it."

They are making jokes because some employee in chat tried to make a case for ivermectin. A genius insisting the EO does not apply to workers based in Texas and another comparing the situation with Na-i Germany.

People also need to be aware that this mandate has been pushed by Cisco to their suppliers so it impacts many more than just Cisco US. Many acquisition companies didn't sign up for this either so the impact on Cisco's investments may be fruitless as well.

As this continues to swell customers and channel partners don't appear to be fans either.

My understanding is that they can ask two questions with regard to a religious exemption. They are:

1. What is your sincere held belief regarding the COVID-19 shot?
2. How is your belief in conflict with getting the COVID-19 shot?

Any other question is a violation of your privacy and religious liberty under the First Amendment of the Constitution, supported by precedent, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What happened with that temper tantrum? I missed it.

"In the check-in people were practically screaming because Cisco isn't listening or responding to questions and concerns of most about taking away their bodily autonomy. Cisco responds by threatening to remove chat and Q&A in future sessions silencing voices even more."

To be fair, that was Chuck Robbins little temper tantrum. Unbelievable. Hopefully cooler, and more professional heads will prevail at the Cisco executive level. Very disappointing behavior from him.

Yeah, I know people who were shadow banned also (including myself). And tons of people didn't get their questions answered. The chat was beautiful - people voicing frustration they've had locked away for months because of Cisco's standing policy of retaliation to anyone who disagrees with an opinion of the ELT.

The ELT are the Cisco "Elite" - and I will 100% voice my opinion that they all were party to coercion and force when Nuremburg 2.0 kicks off. "It was a law" Didn't save anyone the first time, and it won't this time either.

The videos have all been recorded, they have all been transferred by many people (not myself) to other computers/repositories, and the lawsuits are incoming. They will be personally held accountable - each one - for their involvement in this atrocity.

"Since the feds are allowing accommodations in their order and in what they are doing with their own staff, it appears that the company is being more draconian than necessary."

I have been talking with other people that work with some of Cisco's competitors and while they are following the mandate, they are being much more flexible with their employees and are being more generous in accepting accommodations thus far.

Since the feds are allowing accomodations in their order and in what they are doing with their own staff, it appears that the company is being more draconian than necessary.

In the check-in people were practically screaming because Cisco isn't listening or responding to questions and concerns of most about taking away their bodily autonomy. Cisco responds by threatening to remove chat and Q&A in future sessions silencing voices even more. Many people were already shadow banned in todays meeting. Maybe they'll start giving us a Cisco social credit score. If we don't already have one.

To whoever wrote this message below... I just wanted to let you know your commentary has been turned into a meme and is spreading around the internet. Thank you!!!

"Cisco to the person who was hospitalized --> File for workers comp

A bridge to possible, lifelong complications"

"If this is true, Cisco is doomed. They may not want them, but they need these employees."

On a previous check-in for the US it was stated that accommodations would be few and far between. That is why Cisco made the announcement with a deadline so close to it. It left no time to work through a medical request and they were going to mass reject most or all religious accommodation request.

Now there are thousands of employees who have made request and the backlog is filling up every day. They need more time to find reasons to reject them. They also didn't expect the number of people who will outright refuse to provide the information. Even many that are vaccinated who disagree with the mandate.

"The silence here will probably give you your answer"

The company estimated 90% vaxxed and apparently 74% have uploaded documentation so that's a big gap. I didn't expect based on comments here personal experience but wondered if anyone had known if this was actually happening

"have only confirmed one who was successful in attaining approval and zero for medical."

If this is true, Cisco is doomed. They may not want them, but they need these employees.

"Can someone clarify exactly what was announced today? I believe that previously Cisco was requiring vaccinations only for those who came in to the office. Are they requiring all employees to be vaccinated now? Is weekly testing allowed as an alternative?"

All US employees, no exceptions must be vaccinated or have an approved medical or religious accommodation. It doesn't matter if you object, work from home, never go to the office, have recovered from Covid, think it government overreach, a human rights violation, etc. You can request a religious exemption but multiple sources have only confirmed one who was successful in attaining approval and zero for medical.

"Employees from flyover states?..."

I've always found it puzzling when people use this term derisively because the implication is that proximity to the coast grants special qualities or intelligence. But you'd have to be an id--t to believe that, which is why it's a strange thing to say.

GOV employed spouse just told me to retract everything I wrote and to say "Consult an attorney" with regard to exemptions. Sorry.

As far as "reasonable accommodations" go, yes, that may well end up being litigated.

"Employers may probe whether an employee's religious belief is in fact sincere. They may ask questions about that employee's vaccination history or church attendance. If the employer determines the belief is not sincere, it may deny the exemption request."

Only if you give specific reasons. You don't have to. Best is to keep the request simple "religious exemption." So, don't say "fetal lines in testing", just say "Religious Exception." Negative action based on such a request can be considered discriminatory.

""""ANY and ALL requests for religious exemptions must be accepted. """" This is correct, it will be accepted BUT - The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says employers must provide reasonable accommodations for workers who have sincerely held religious beliefs — unless doing so poses an undue hardship.

Employers may probe whether an employee's religious belief is in fact sincere. They may ask questions about that employee's vaccination history or church attendance. If the employer determines the belief is not sincere, it may deny the exemption request.

Look at that very carefully. If you touch ANY thing connected to the EO then you will pose an undue hardship. That extends to if you "might" return to the office and someone else in that office is connects to anything related to the EO....even the same parking lot.

Just an FYI from the person whose spouse works in a GOV rule in the realm of employment.

ANY and ALL requests for religious exemptions must be accepted. You do NOT have to state ANY reason beyond "religious exemption." You are under no obligation to provide any other information than the fact that you are claiming a religious based exemption. If you are told otherwise, you are being lied to.

Can someone clarify exactly what was announced today? I believe that previously Cisco was requiring vaccinations only for those who came in to the office. Are they requiring all employees to be vaccinated now? Is weekly testing allowed as an alternative?

"Those who make hostile comments in the check-in chats against ANYONE should be fired. "

Thanks. I agree. Your corrections are appreciated.

People should be tolerant and respectful of any situation.

@6eda+1dyzJoi5

Truth! I was amazed at the stupidity of supposedly smart people. Did they totally forget about the people who made stupid comments that were fired? Just keep those comments to yourself or put them here where it's anonymous.

I was watching the Q&A questions instead of the comments, so I'm waiting for the replay to be available. After the live session, the chat section didn't scroll back far enough for me to find the Na-i Germany comparison. I look forward to reading the transcripts of the chat.

I had to chuckle at the lady who kept asking the same thing over and over at the check-in last night and again today in the vaccination check-in. She kept getting an answer she didn't like, so she kept asking like if she asked enough they'd say "Ok, for you we'll let you have your way now."

I also found it funny that one guy commented how Chuck's comment about possibly turning off the chat was censorship and tyranny. No, it's to keep id--ts from speaking their mind and making more work for Cisco's HR to have to reprimand all of them.

I hope Cisco does talk to some of the hateful commenters. I don't know where I stand on the mandate, mainly because I've been vaccinated for 9 months already and it doesn't affect me. As ex-military, I had to have so many vaccinations, and my WHO vaccination booklet issued to me in 1992 has been completely full since 2017. I've had to comply with the UCMJ, then government policies when I worked for defense contractors under government contracts, and now at Cisco. It's just more of the same old sh-t, but this got politicized under the orange man. I truly wonder how many people would be against this if it hadn't been for Fox News.

Are anti-vaxxers just scared of everything in life? Man up.

Those who make hostile comments in the check-in chats against those who have a medical or religious reason to get an exemption should be fired. They are creating a hostile/toxic workplace environment. They are also in violation of the ADA and EEOC regulations.

Those who make hostile comments in the check-in chats against ANYONE should be fired. They are creating a hostile/toxic workplace environment. They are also in violation of the ADA and EEOC regulations.

There, I fixed it for you.

"If I get the shot, I'll die... If it was so lethal, it wouldn't have gotten FDA approval. "

You might not die today or experience anything today, but what about 2 years? We don't know, it hasn't been around that long. What about 5-10 years? You might want to look at the LONG list of dr-gs that have been removed from the market, even though they were "FDA Approved". Don't worry, you can trust the gov't, USDA allows rat hair and cockroach parts in every can of tuna!

For now you'll have a job until it's decided you don't. No worries for me. I've made smart decisions about money and do not need this job or any job for that matter. So no we are not "gonna" need it.

Good for you. Most of the comments here are about having to choose between homelessness or death. Talk about taking each choice to the absolute extreme.

If I lose my job, I'll be homeless... Yes, I have worried about finding the next job when one suddenly ends, but right now it's an employee's market. Everyone is hiring. Whether or not you can find an employer who's not requiring vaccinations it a different matter.

If I get the shot, I'll die... If it was so lethal, it wouldn't have gotten FDA approval. The odds of you dying from the shot is about the same as you dying from COVID (at least if you believe everyone's "it's 99.9% survivable" comments against getting vaccinated.)

"Employees from flyover states?" and all the other toxic comments.

Hopefully some of these people posted these comments from a Cisco computer so they can be tracked down and fired.

Some of us almost died from the first shot. You didn't, great for you. But for those at risk, this is garbage.

Then I guess you have a medical exemption case if you can prove it almost ki---d you.

I've read more comments about how it almost ki---d someone, or someone in their family or someone they knew on this forum than the documented percentage of people who've reported issues. I guess all the people who had issues either work for Cisco, or know someone who works at Cisco. I don't know a lot of people, but I haven't heard of a single person I know having any issues. My extended family all say they've not heard of any one from their church congregations having issues w/ the vaccination. And, YES, there are a significant portion of their congregations getting vaccinated because they belong to churches that have been established for generations and have a high percentage of retiree/seniors who are members and at risk of dying from COVID and are getting their vaccinations to reduce their risk of dying.

"Has anyone received an approved accommodation request?"

The silence here will probably give you your answer

"Employees from flyover states?"

Powering an inclusive future for all will require the flyover states too

How about the fellow who conspired to cyber attack the feds … I don’t want the vax but even I am not that re--rded

TIL this is the first ever vaccine mandate!

After watching today's vaccine broadcast, it's pretty clear we're going to shed well over 10% of our workforce over this. So many incredibly imbecile comments in the chat. I was literally shaking my head in disbelief. Look, you are free to believe in whatever you want, I personally couldn't care less. But at least have enough brain power to resist ranting in the chat section about it! Remember how a dozen employees were let go after the BLM broadcast because they wrote "no, ALM!". Well this was peanuts compared to what I read today. In the awards section, my top three goes to: that stubborn guy repeating how Ivermectin works wonders, the stable genius insisting the EO does not apply to workers based in Texas, and the Oscar goes to the guy that had the unmitigated audacity to compare the situation with Na-i Germany. Never thought I'd see something like this!