[stonogo]

Generally, the use of the word 'coerced' involves threat of force, which approximately zero employers invoked. When you use it to describe conditions of employment, you're conflating violence with company policy. Most people at this point are going to infer that you have some kind of problem with the pandemic response, whether they agree with you or not. So, that's likely the dogwhistle being referred to here.

Meanwhile, if you are making a good-faith argument that employers have too much control over their employees' health care, feel free to get involved with organizing labor unions.

[tlivolsi]

>Generally, the use of the word 'coerced' involves threat of force, which approximately zero employers invoked

Yes. Forcing someone to choose between losing their job or undergoing unusual and routine mandatory, invasive medical procedures, which can lead to consequences like those mentioned in the above article, constitutes coercion.

[stonogo]

That's not the commonly-accepted interpretation of coercion. Under this definition, "forcing" someone to choose between losing their job and doing the work they were hired to do also constitutes coercion. Losing your job because you declined to comply with company policy does not constitute violence. Insisting that your modified definition is the correct one does not advance the discourse in a productive manner.

[elevatedastalt]

I don't know if you are being willfully obtuse but coercion doesn't have to be physical. Feel free to consult any dictionary.

[jjgreen]

I don't think that coercion implies violence or the threat of violence. There are other ways of coercing.