Ditch the .gov contracts and catch up with the civilian orders. They can nab the contracts again when the nonsense stops.
Real or Fake? Hornady pleading w employees to vax?
- Thread starter D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷
- Start date
It was point out that just about all of the big guys have gov contracts. If you say you won't use them you will be in a pickle....
Your loving huckleberry
That letter, if true is a full stop diocy. Hornady could sell ammo and components to JUST civilians and make a fortune just trying to keep up with the hoarders and self-imposed "shortages", without selling a single federal contract bullet. When the feds order trillions of rounds, itis just to tie up access, from the civilians. I mean, who ever heard of the Weatherman needing a SWAT team, or Department of Ed? Insidious bullshit.
Every manufacturer could simply say, "Yeah, I appreciate your order, you are on a waiting list, we have to fulfill civilian demand first." Or is that too simple?
Every manufacturer could simply say, "Yeah, I appreciate your order, you are on a waiting list, we have to fulfill civilian demand first." Or is that too simple?
Note that many contracts are just that, and already in place. Defaulting on the contract terms is going to be a problem, and that problem may very well lead to closing the doors. I don't see how having ammo companies folding is helpful in any way.
Lots of people here who have no skin in the game, no clue how the business works, think the SC should somehow just invalidate an OSHA rule, would not know Jacobson vs. Mass. if it hit them on the head and have no idea how a vaccine actually works seem to be pissed off at a company that may really have no choices but follow the law or close the shop.
Now should this mandate actually exist? Most certainly not, the threat from Covid is nowhere near a reasonable threshold where the State should be making it any kind of requirement for anything at all. Offer it up for free, sure. Promote it in any way you like, sure. Penalize people who don't get it? That's insanity. Of course a good number of inhabitants of the US seem to be functionally illiterate and/or insane, so I guess I should not be surprised. I mean AOC got elected, and how is that possible if anyone heard her say anything? Uncle Joe serves up word salad at every press conference and instead of being in a elder care facility he's President? Wonko the Sane may have a point.
If you currently have .GOV contracts in place, well, you are kind of stuck. If on the other hand you are bidding, or open contracts are out there, realize what you are committing to when you bid and get one. The pushback needs to be contractors banding together and denying any new contract work until the mandate is lifted. That's much easier to say than to do, as many of those companies live off those contracts and competition to get them is tough. Absent that (which is pretty much never going to happen) our representative government needs to be so swamped by public complaints that they have no choice but to reverse policy.
If enough people just say no, and enough products go into mass shortage mode, delivery companies can't deliver what product actually exists and it starts to look like the old Soviet Union bread lines at the supermarket, then you might get some .GOV types to see the error of their ways. Maybe. I don't hold out much hope for sane policy given the way they talk and behave.
Of course I've got food, water. ammo and a several mile perimeter. I'm pretty much past caring what the masses do. I expect the dolphins to depart shortly.
Lots of people here who have no skin in the game, no clue how the business works, think the SC should somehow just invalidate an OSHA rule, would not know Jacobson vs. Mass. if it hit them on the head and have no idea how a vaccine actually works seem to be pissed off at a company that may really have no choices but follow the law or close the shop.
Now should this mandate actually exist? Most certainly not, the threat from Covid is nowhere near a reasonable threshold where the State should be making it any kind of requirement for anything at all. Offer it up for free, sure. Promote it in any way you like, sure. Penalize people who don't get it? That's insanity. Of course a good number of inhabitants of the US seem to be functionally illiterate and/or insane, so I guess I should not be surprised. I mean AOC got elected, and how is that possible if anyone heard her say anything? Uncle Joe serves up word salad at every press conference and instead of being in a elder care facility he's President? Wonko the Sane may have a point.
If you currently have .GOV contracts in place, well, you are kind of stuck. If on the other hand you are bidding, or open contracts are out there, realize what you are committing to when you bid and get one. The pushback needs to be contractors banding together and denying any new contract work until the mandate is lifted. That's much easier to say than to do, as many of those companies live off those contracts and competition to get them is tough. Absent that (which is pretty much never going to happen) our representative government needs to be so swamped by public complaints that they have no choice but to reverse policy.
If enough people just say no, and enough products go into mass shortage mode, delivery companies can't deliver what product actually exists and it starts to look like the old Soviet Union bread lines at the supermarket, then you might get some .GOV types to see the error of their ways. Maybe. I don't hold out much hope for sane policy given the way they talk and behave.
Of course I've got food, water. ammo and a several mile perimeter. I'm pretty much past caring what the masses do. I expect the dolphins to depart shortly.
It's worth noting that most people in this forum come to this from the view that the vaccine is somehow toxic, and that no doubt influences their view of anybody asking anybody else to get vaccinated. They see it as asking that person to put themself in mortal danger.
I imagine that Steve Hornady, like most people outside this forum, believes (I think rightfully) that the vaccine is not only safe, but effective, and he doesn't see asking people to get vaccinated as asking them to possibly do great harm to themselves. It is a completely different perspective.
This is on top of everything that Cory mentions above, the long, going back to George Washington, history of vaccine mandates, the legal foundation for it etc, and, of course, the moral responsibility of having a contract. I also don't think the mandate is good, but certainly it is more defensible for government contracts than for general business, and I don't imagine Steve Hornady loves it either, but reality also exists, and, going back to perceptions of the vaccine, it is very different to comply with a mandate you see as deadly, and to comply with a mandate you see as ill advised.
I imagine that Steve Hornady, like most people outside this forum, believes (I think rightfully) that the vaccine is not only safe, but effective, and he doesn't see asking people to get vaccinated as asking them to possibly do great harm to themselves. It is a completely different perspective.
This is on top of everything that Cory mentions above, the long, going back to George Washington, history of vaccine mandates, the legal foundation for it etc, and, of course, the moral responsibility of having a contract. I also don't think the mandate is good, but certainly it is more defensible for government contracts than for general business, and I don't imagine Steve Hornady loves it either, but reality also exists, and, going back to perceptions of the vaccine, it is very different to comply with a mandate you see as deadly, and to comply with a mandate you see as ill advised.
Please provide me a copy or a link to this OSHA regulation you speak of. I would love to see it.
If you can provide me a link to an official, in place and in force vaccination mandate from OSHA as of Oct 23 I will PayPal you 50 dollars.
If the contracts were already in place do you think there are t's&c's regarding covid shots?
Doubtful.
Now, new contracts or a change in existing, that's a diff story.
IIRC, the government contract mandate does exist even if the OSHA rule does not. I think Hornady is covered under the gov contract.
What's next, BMI?
Smoking?
Drinking?
Only 3 days of fast food a week?
Drug use?
Smoking the reefer?
Once agency over your body is stolen it'll never be your's again.
Wonder if gov healthcare was part of this game?...
Wonder how Southwest got a pass?...
I'd bet they make a couple of dollars more than hornady.
R
Smoking?
Drinking?
Only 3 days of fast food a week?
Drug use?
Smoking the reefer?
Once agency over your body is stolen it'll never be your's again.
Wonder if gov healthcare was part of this game?...
Wonder how Southwest got a pass?...
I'd bet they make a couple of dollars more than hornady.
R
It overall, or specific it's?
Overall, agree with you.
If it's not this, it will be that.
A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
A: I don't use PayPal, as they are thieves.
B: Hunting up an link on the OSHA site seems like a waste of time. AZ for example has filed suit to prevent enforcement of the rule, I doubt they'd take the time to do that for something that does not exist.
C: If you note the text of the letter, the rule takes effect in the future, hence the dates specified for the individual to have taken the last dose.
There are ways around it. One of my suppliers does a covid test daily.
It's a written test. 3 questions.
Date, name, and "Do you have Covid? - Check Yes or No.
Meets all the requirements.
It's a written test. 3 questions.
Date, name, and "Do you have Covid? - Check Yes or No.
Meets all the requirements.
This public message brought to you by Choid
Not for Federal workers or contractors. No testing or question options, vaccine only.
Executive Order 14042
www.whitehouse.gov
DFAR being applied: 252.223-7999
(b) Authority. This clause implements Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, dated September 9, 2021 (published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2021, 86 FR 50985).
(c) Compliance. The Contractor shall comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this contract, for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https:/www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/.
(d) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in subcontracts at any tier that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subcontract award, and are for services, including construction, performed in whole or in part within the United States or its outlying areas.
Under current guidance, Lockheed Martin is not required to collect copies of your employees’ vaccination card or other proof of their vaccination status. If, however, Lockheed Martin is required to collect this type of documentation in the future to comply with DOD, NASA or other government customers’ vaccination related requirements then Lockheed Martin employees are instructed to acknowledge the status and return or destroy the copy. Lockheed Martin is not responsible for gathering or maintaining this documentation for non-employees.
Executive Order on Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and
DFAR being applied: 252.223-7999
(b) Authority. This clause implements Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, dated September 9, 2021 (published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2021, 86 FR 50985).
(c) Compliance. The Contractor shall comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this contract, for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https:/www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/.
(d) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in subcontracts at any tier that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subcontract award, and are for services, including construction, performed in whole or in part within the United States or its outlying areas.
As a primary contact for your company, you are responsible for adherence and awareness of the guidance for your employees who support Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin Corporation 6801 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817 Chris Stone Vice President, Supply Chain Oct. 14, 2021 TO: Lockheed Martin Suppliers SUBJECT: Adherence to Executive Orders On Sept. 24, the U.S. government’s Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued guidance pursuant to the White House Executive Order regarding COVID-19 precautions for government contractors. Included in this guidance is the requirement that certain individuals that work on, or in connection with a federal government covered contract, or work at a location where a covered contract is likely to be performed (a “covered contractor workplace”), must be vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8. Given the breadth of Lockheed Martin’s contracts with the federal government, all its U.S. facilities will be considered covered contractor workplaces. Lockheed Martin anticipates that the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force’s guidance will have already been incorporated into its contracts beginning this month, which will result in new COVID-19 safety requirements applying at Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facilities. These new requirements will apply to all Lockheed Martin supplier employees if they work at a Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facility. The following guidance applies to any Lockheed Martin supplier employees, or their subcontractors, that are assigned to work onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility on a long-term or temporary basis (“resident non-employees”). · Resident non-employees that work at a Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facility will need to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8 and certify their vaccination status through VisitLM. In accordance with guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), individuals are considered "fully vaccinated" for COVID-19 greater than two weeks after they have received the second dose in a two-dose series, or greater than two weeks after they have received a single-dose vaccine. To meet this timeline, a resident non-employee must receive their final vaccine dose no later than Nov. 24, two weeks prior to the vaccination deadline. · A thorough evaluation of the Executive Order and our government contracts has not identified any U.S. site to be exempt from the vaccine requirement. · If your resident non-employees have previously certified within VisitLM and their certification status is anything other than “fully vaccinated” then please update your status accordingly. · As stated in prior guidance, vaccinated resident non-employees should also continue to wear masks, social distance as appropriate and follow precautionary guidance in all spaces in accordance with CDC community transmission guidance, and where required by federal, state, local or other site-specific rules and regulations. · If there is a possibility of staffing shortages or other disruptions due to this requirement, we ask that you bring this forward well in advance of the Nov. 24 deadline and alert your Lockheed Martin procurement representative. Additionally, your personnel will be required to comply with the new COVID-19 safety requirement relating to vaccination if they work on or in support of a covered contract, e.g., a contract with the federal government that includes the Executive Order’s vaccination requirement, even if they are not likely to, or will never, be present at a Lockheed Martin facility. Thank you for your patience as we review all the COVID-19 related federal, state and local orders, laws and regulations to determine their applicability to our resident non-employees. Lockheed Martin will continue to be required to comply with all Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other government customers’ vaccination related requirements. As additional guidance is issued, we will provide you with further information. As we navigate the path out of the pandemic, Lockheed Martin is steadfast in our commitment to providing a safe work environment and fulfilling our customer missions. Below are VisitLM resources and Questions & Answers to assist in adherence to the new requirements discussed above. Continue to direct any additional questions to your Lockheed Martin procurement representative. Thank you, Chris VisitLM Resources If you have any questions that are not covered on the VisitLM Help Page regarding access to U.S. facilities, please contact LMSecurity at [email protected] or call (407) 306-7311 or toll-free at (866) 330-7311. In addition, reference the VisitLM Quick Reference Guide. Question & Answers In addition to the following, you can also refer to the Safer Federal Workforce FAQs.
Resident non-employees are any individuals that are assigned to work onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility under a long-term or temporary contractual arrangement with Lockheed Martin (including contingent labor contract personnel). All such individuals are subject to the requirement to become fully vaccinated by Dec. 8. In certain limited instances, a visitor will have a need to access a Lockheed Martin facility but may not be subject to the requirement to become fully vaccinated. Visitors are defined as individuals that represent a company or individual who are not government employees or affiliated with a part of Lockheed Martin’s resident non-employee contract labor work force. Employees of logistics vendors (like FedEx and UPS) or vendors who come onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility but will only have brief and peripheral access (like food delivery or taxis) are considered visitors for purposes of this guidance. While guidance as set forth by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force does not require visitors to be vaccinated at this time, visitors are nonetheless still required to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s masking and physical distancing guidelines. Individuals who come onsite for meetings, for example, are deemed resident non-employees and not visitors for the purposes of this communication. It is your responsibility to notify your employees that are impacted by the vaccine requirement.
Fully vaccinated resident non-employees that work at a Lockheed Martin facility located in an area where there is high or substantial community transmission of COVID-19 must wear a mask in indoor settings. If you have granted certain of your onsite personnel an exception from the vaccination requirement, and Lockheed Martin is able to provide any such individual(s) an accommodation, then the individual(s) will be required to wear a mask and maintain physical distancing as recommended by the CDC.
Resident non-employees who perform services outside of the buildings are subject to the same vaccine requirements.
|
Fuck the government and all their Stasi thugs
HmmmmmmExecutive Order 14042
Executive Order on Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and
DFAR being applied: 252.223-7999
(b) Authority. This clause implements Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, dated September 9, 2021 (published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2021, 86 FR 50985).
(c) Compliance. The Contractor shall comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this contract, for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https:/www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/.
(d) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in subcontracts at any tier that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subcontract award, and are for services, including construction, performed in whole or in part within the United States or its outlying areas.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
6801 Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20817
Chris Stone
Vice President, Supply Chain
Oct. 14, 2021
TO: Lockheed Martin Suppliers
SUBJECT: Adherence to Executive Orders
On Sept. 24, the U.S. government’s Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued guidance pursuant to the White House Executive Order regarding COVID-19 precautions for government contractors. Included in this guidance is the requirement that certain individuals that work on, or in connection with a federal government covered contract, or work at a location where a covered contract is likely to be performed (a “covered contractor workplace”), must be vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8.
Given the breadth of Lockheed Martin’s contracts with the federal government, all its U.S. facilities will be considered covered contractor workplaces. Lockheed Martin anticipates that the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force’s guidance will have already been incorporated into its contracts beginning this month, which will result in new COVID-19 safety requirements applying at Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facilities. These new requirements will apply to all Lockheed Martin supplier employees if they work at a Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facility.
The following guidance applies to any Lockheed Martin supplier employees, or their subcontractors, that are assigned to work onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility on a long-term or temporary basis (“resident non-employees”).
· Resident non-employees that work at a Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facility will need to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8 and certify their vaccination status through VisitLM. In accordance with guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), individuals are considered "fully vaccinated" for COVID-19 greater than two weeks after they have received the second dose in a two-dose series, or greater than two weeks after they have received a single-dose vaccine. To meet this timeline, a resident non-employee must receive their final vaccine dose no later than Nov. 24, two weeks prior to the vaccination deadline.
· A thorough evaluation of the Executive Order and our government contracts has not identified any U.S. site to be exempt from the vaccine requirement.
· If your resident non-employees have previously certified within VisitLM and their certification status is anything other than “fully vaccinated” then please update your status accordingly.
· As stated in prior guidance, vaccinated resident non-employees should also continue to wear masks, social distance as appropriate and follow precautionary guidance in all spaces in accordance with CDC community transmission guidance, and where required by federal, state, local or other site-specific rules and regulations.
· If there is a possibility of staffing shortages or other disruptions due to this requirement, we ask that you bring this forward well in advance of the Nov. 24 deadline and alert your Lockheed Martin procurement representative.
Additionally, your personnel will be required to comply with the new COVID-19 safety requirement relating to vaccination if they work on or in support of a covered contract, e.g., a contract with the federal government that includes the Executive Order’s vaccination requirement, even if they are not likely to, or will never, be present at a Lockheed Martin facility.
Thank you for your patience as we review all the COVID-19 related federal, state and local orders, laws and regulations to determine their applicability to our resident non-employees. Lockheed Martin will continue to be required to comply with all Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other government customers’ vaccination related requirements. As additional guidance is issued, we will provide you with further information.
As we navigate the path out of the pandemic, Lockheed Martin is steadfast in our commitment to providing a safe work environment and fulfilling our customer missions. Below are VisitLM resources and Questions & Answers to assist in adherence to the new requirements discussed above. Continue to direct any additional questions to your Lockheed Martin procurement representative.
Thank you,
Chris
VisitLM Resources
If you have any questions that are not covered on the VisitLM Help Page regarding access to U.S. facilities, please contact LMSecurity at [email protected] or call (407) 306-7311 or toll-free at (866) 330-7311. In addition, reference the VisitLM Quick Reference Guide.
Question & Answers
In addition to the following, you can also refer to the Safer Federal Workforce FAQs.
- Is there any distinction between “resident non-employees” and “visitors”? How will I know whether or not my personnel are subject to the vaccine mandate?
Resident non-employees are any individuals that are assigned to work onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility under a long-term or temporary contractual arrangement with Lockheed Martin (including contingent labor contract personnel). All such individuals are subject to the requirement to become fully vaccinated by Dec. 8.
In certain limited instances, a visitor will have a need to access a Lockheed Martin facility but may not be subject to the requirement to become fully vaccinated. Visitors are defined as individuals that represent a company or individual who are not government employees or affiliated with a part of Lockheed Martin’s resident non-employee contract labor work force. Employees of logistics vendors (like FedEx and UPS) or vendors who come onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility but will only have brief and peripheral access (like food delivery or taxis) are considered visitors for purposes of this guidance. While guidance as set forth by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force does not require visitors to be vaccinated at this time, visitors are nonetheless still required to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s masking and physical distancing guidelines.
Individuals who come onsite for meetings, for example, are deemed resident non-employees and not visitors for the purposes of this communication.
It is your responsibility to notify your employees that are impacted by the vaccine requirement.
- If my employees that work onsite at a Lockheed Martin facility are fully vaccinated, do they still need to wear a mask?
Fully vaccinated resident non-employees that work at a Lockheed Martin facility located in an area where there is high or substantial community transmission of COVID-19 must wear a mask in indoor settings. If you have granted certain of your onsite personnel an exception from the vaccination requirement, and Lockheed Martin is able to provide any such individual(s) an accommodation, then the individual(s) will be required to wear a mask and maintain physical distancing as recommended by the CDC.
- What is the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for resident non-employees that only perform services outside at a Lockheed Martin U.S.-based facility (construction, landscaper, snow removal, etc.)?
Resident non-employees who perform services outside of the buildings are subject to the same vaccine requirements.
- How will Lockheed Martin handle copies of vaccination card or other proof of vaccination status provided by a non-employee?
Under current guidance, Lockheed Martin is not required to collect copies of your employees’ vaccination card or other proof of their vaccination status. If, however, Lockheed Martin is required to collect this type of documentation in the future to comply with DOD, NASA or other government customers’ vaccination related requirements then Lockheed Martin employees are instructed to acknowledge the status and return or destroy the copy. Lockheed Martin is not responsible for gathering or maintaining this documentation for non-employees.
HSTs were always better anyways
*in before federal has walkouts
“durp, we can find no good employees, thatz why we have such shitty customer service and product fulfillment”
same guy “fire all the good employees because the voice on the TV said soooo”
stupid should hurt
*in before federal has walkouts
“durp, we can find no good employees, thatz why we have such shitty customer service and product fulfillment”
same guy “fire all the good employees because the voice on the TV said soooo”
stupid should hurt
If Hornady is considered a contractor, then they risk losing all govt contracts if they don't follow this BS
like all other contractors
Federal Contractors | Safer Federal Workforce
FAQs for Federal Contractorswww.saferfederalworkforce.gov
Not sure if Hornady has a business left without gov't money....
Not sure of Hornady has a business left without sales to people on the hide....
In this climate if you can’t figure out how to sell every round to make, you deserve to go out of biz
We need more of this
They have a huge DOD contract or two. Interesting to see what they will do.In this climate if you can’t figure out how to sell every round to make, you deserve to go out of biz
We need more of this
If a company refused to sell to the state, marketed it right, I wonder how much business they’d get from real Americans?
They’d earn mine.
It's an interesting question. I don't know Ronnie Barrett's view on vaccines, even though I know his view on the 2a. They aren't necessarily the same. But you might need to buy a few MRADs.
Why couldn’t hornady start a second business on paper for the commie gov contracts and just staff it with those that take the clot shot ?
I thought that as well as other businesses that fall under the over 100 employees bs mandate, just make them contractors and have 99 employees.
I think government contractors have more strict rules, but since nobody really knows the rules yet, who knows.
The government doesn’t make their own…anything.
big gov lacks the creativity and mental firepower to do it.
Funny when folks buy the gov sales pitch and forget who really is the bug and who really is the windshield.
If just 2 of the big names in ammo said “fuck you then, good help is hard to find and we have plenty of back orders in the private sector” let’s go Brandon would “exempt” them in 3 2 1
I'd consider just shutting the business down. Contract over. So sorry, no more Hornady.
Then reopen the next day as Let's go Brandon Inc.
Then reopen the next day as Let's go Brandon Inc.
Again, I think the miscalculation a lot of people are making is to assume Steve Hornady thinks the same way you do about the vaccines, or even the regs. It is not exactly a majority opinion, especially about the vax. Just because he likes guns doesn't mean he thinks a certain way about vaccines.
Lot of concern in this thread about someone else's decision.
"We want the right to choose"
"NO NOT THAT CHOICE!!!"
"We want the right to choose"
"NO NOT THAT CHOICE!!!"
Hornady doesn't make a single round for the military.
Government contracts are for providing ammo to the IRS, EPA, and all the other paper-pushing alphabet agencies that have no business buying ammo in the first place.
If they had a hair on their collective asses they'd say 'fuck the contract.' They can sell everything that was supposed to go to the government to the commercial market... People will buy it like MF'n hotcakes.
Mike
Government contracts are for providing ammo to the IRS, EPA, and all the other paper-pushing alphabet agencies that have no business buying ammo in the first place.
If they had a hair on their collective asses they'd say 'fuck the contract.' They can sell everything that was supposed to go to the government to the commercial market... People will buy it like MF'n hotcakes.
Mike
Even assuming he did, the logistics involved with closing and starting over, or just creating a new non-contracted operation are FAR more complex than the posters realize. If it were simple, you’d just start your own ammo business. Good luck with that.
Says someone who’s never been sued into the ground by a bottomless pocketbook for breach of contract.
Of course. I'm just making the point that when people scream that he should put his morals over his business interests, they are assuming that he shares their opinion about all things vaccine. I would put money on that not being true. Not much, but a little.
Idiots if they signed a contract that would allow experimental not vaccines to be a requirement of the company’s employees
Absolutely. You are correct. I'm just saying that it is a mistake, these days, to ever assume that somebody else is dealing with the same group of preconceptions you are. In almost any arena. And that it is those preconceptions that determine how two people might see different moral aspects to the same issue.
All steve needs to do is check out SW airlines. Employees walk, owners cave
Yes because the circular firing squad has decided to aim at Hornady for just trying to stay in business and we got 10,000 business experts here in the pit ready to navigate govt contracts, public sentiment, govt overreach, a pandemic, and a major supply shortage.
Somewhere a liberal is laughing their ass off at this dysfunction.
Pro Tip:
Every other ammo mfg company has this issue. Troll comes in, stirs up the pit.
Mission accomplished.
That breach of contract works both ways. When the terms of the contracts (pre-covid) were initially agreed on, mandatory vax was not a requirement.
Makes a ton of sense...
"You're not giving me what we agreed to... So I'll sue you so bad you won't be able to give me what we agreed to."
Unless of course the plan all along was to drive them out of business.
Mike
I'm guessing you guys have all seen the contracts that these companies sign with the government. Because a lot of contracts have clauses that allow for changes based on changes to the goings on in the world. They aren't always like a car purchase contract.
Similar threads
