NO JAB NO JOB

[Taylor James]

CrutyRammers said:

Taylor James said:

98elise said:

Taylor James said:

98elise said:

Taylor James said:

98elise said:

Lily the Pink said:

98elise said:

Vaccination isn't a protected characteristic.

Just picking up on this, with a genuine question. Is an employer or service provider allowed to demand knowledge of any/all aspects of the health of an employee or customer ?

I've certainly had medical checks required as a condition of employment. It's ranged from a full medical, to drugs tests (including the option to test at random). No test, no job.

How about full access to your medical records so I can see if you have ever consulted the doctor with psychological issues or erectile dysfunction?

When I was in the Navy they had exactly that.

Fine. How about if you were working in a DIY store. That would be ok?

They can ask. I might not agree with it, and they might not offer me a job on that basis.

Some jobs require very intrusive questioning, and access to all sorts of stuff you wouldn't normally give to an employer. You don't have to agree, but you won't get the job.

Yes, some jobs do. The vast majority don't. An employer cannot ask any question they like without adequate justification and refuse to interview applicants let alone employ them.

Yes, it's about being proportional and reasonable. An employer cannot blanket ask to see everyone's full medical record, and discriminate on that basis, unless there is a good reason to do so. Serving on a warship or flying a fighter or working in an operating theatre are different to being a plumber or sitting in an office.

Is this a hard concept? It doesn't seem so.

Not for me but it seems it is for some. I'm glad you get it. The justifications for seeing medical records/excluding people from various activities will have to be decided on a case by case basis under current legislation. It seems that some people can't grasp this and believe that an employer or service provider can do what they want, because like, covid.

[Taylor James]

Gadgetmac said:

Taylor James said:

Nickgnome said:

Brave Fart said:

Jasandjules said:

Can I just check, you DO actually understand that someone who "can't" take the vaccine for medical reasons is "unvaccinated". This is the same status as the person who has decided not to??. I mean, this may sound like a very basic concept but you don't appear to be able to comprehend it.

So, please do explain to me how the unvaccinated by choice person can't be put at risk by the one who can't be vaccinated for their medical reasons IF the reverse is true.

I was wondering this too. If I say to the airline "I'm medically exempt and cannot take the vaccine", will they just say "OK Sir, have a nice flight"?
Surely it'll be the same as the mask exemption we currently have - you can, effectively, self certify. Or will a vaccine exemption be more rigorous?

Surely it is very straightforward. Those that are medically exempted from the vaccine, which will probably be a very small percentage will be required to take a PCR test before travel, in the same way as it is mandated now by some nations for all travellers.

Those that have no justifiable medical reason for not having the vaccine may or may not be allowed to travel. It will be up the the destination country and possibly the airline.

I suspect a level of rigour will be adopted for the next year or so until globally we see how his pandemic subsides for resurges due to mutations.

This forum is not remotely representative of the populous as a whole.

This gets funnier by the minute.

You'll need to give everyone a PCR test since we know that the vaccine doesn't provide immunity or a guarantee of no transmission. So we could have the spectacle of people being refused their seat whilst yelling "but I've been vaccinated. I've got a certificate, look!" Even better, they'll be allowed on, but not allowed off when they arrive at their destination because they've passed the test at one end and failed at the other.

I very much suspect that you won’t get the flight ticket unless you tick the vaccinated box long before you actually get to check in. Jeez.

Yes and then you'll need to be tested at check in or the gate or else your vaccination certificate isn't worth the paper it's written on. And then, at the gate, you could test positive, because vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity. Christ.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

Seriously, you’re talking to me about being unable to comprehend something. Have you ever read your posting history back to yourself?

I see you have no answer and as such must resort to attempted insults. Want to try once more or in the alternative be an adult and accept your point was preposterous?

Did you not read Nickgnome’s answer? It’s your question thats ridiculous.

[otolith]

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

[Lily the Pink]

Nickgnome said:

Those that have no justifiable medical reason for not having the vaccine may or may not be allowed to travel. It will be up the the destination country and possibly the airline.

I have less of a problem with a country refusing to allow entry to someone who is unvaccinated - and even with airlines checking that status at check-in (a la Yellow Fever, for example), as the destination country will put the onus on the airline to not allow unvaccinated visitors to disembark. I have more of a problem with airlines and other commercial entities (such as plumbers for example) deciding for themselves that they need knowledge of customers' health status before providing their services.

[Lily the Pink]

Gadgetmac said:

Lily the Pink said:

Are you prepared to answer the question about what percentage you'd be prepared to accept as "enough" to render passports unnecessary ?

It’s irrelevent what percentage I’d accept..I have no input to that decision as unlike the anti-vaxxers on here 8’m not an expert in the field of immunlogy, statistics etc etc. It will depend on the individual circumstances I suppose.

So you will accept the decision of experts if and when they say that vaccine passports are not required ?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

It seems the conventional wisdom is employers would be able to discriminate on the basis of vaccinations for new hires but not require existing employees to be vaccinated or disclose medical records. If the vaccine is required regularly like flu vaccines then presumably they wouldn't be able to demand proof that someone was vaccinated.

Nor might they want to be harassing otherwise good employees or turning down applications from skilled people for such a reason, especially when the hoo ha dies down. Despite the uncompromising online persona of the PH tycoons plenty of people at all levels harbour strange personal views and habits.

Not sure how things will stand if someone objects on religious grounds. At what point would it become religious discrimination? And what proof could companies realistically ask for that their particular interpretation of their faith couldn't reasonably be taken that way?

I still suspect it will all come to nought. Things seem to be getting more normal by the day and the covidian fundamentalists are sounding ever more like the hardcore remainers coming to terms (or not) with the fact that they were not going to get their way.

[98elise]

Taylor James said:

Gadgetmac said:

Taylor James said:

Nickgnome said:

Brave Fart said:

Jasandjules said:

Can I just check, you DO actually understand that someone who "can't" take the vaccine for medical reasons is "unvaccinated". This is the same status as the person who has decided not to??. I mean, this may sound like a very basic concept but you don't appear to be able to comprehend it.

So, please do explain to me how the unvaccinated by choice person can't be put at risk by the one who can't be vaccinated for their medical reasons IF the reverse is true.

I was wondering this too. If I say to the airline "I'm medically exempt and cannot take the vaccine", will they just say "OK Sir, have a nice flight"?
Surely it'll be the same as the mask exemption we currently have - you can, effectively, self certify. Or will a vaccine exemption be more rigorous?

Surely it is very straightforward. Those that are medically exempted from the vaccine, which will probably be a very small percentage will be required to take a PCR test before travel, in the same way as it is mandated now by some nations for all travellers.

Those that have no justifiable medical reason for not having the vaccine may or may not be allowed to travel. It will be up the the destination country and possibly the airline.

I suspect a level of rigour will be adopted for the next year or so until globally we see how his pandemic subsides for resurges due to mutations.

This forum is not remotely representative of the populous as a whole.

This gets funnier by the minute.

You'll need to give everyone a PCR test since we know that the vaccine doesn't provide immunity or a guarantee of no transmission. So we could have the spectacle of people being refused their seat whilst yelling "but I've been vaccinated. I've got a certificate, look!" Even better, they'll be allowed on, but not allowed off when they arrive at their destination because they've passed the test at one end and failed at the other.

I very much suspect that you won’t get the flight ticket unless you tick the vaccinated box long before you actually get to check in. Jeez.

Yes and then you'll need to be tested at check in or the gate or else your vaccination certificate isn't worth the paper it's written on. And then, at the gate, you could test positive, because vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity. Christ.

A bit like now

Red list travel to the UK said:

You must have proof of a negative coronavirus test to travel to the UK - even if you’re a UK citizen.

If your test result is positive you must not travel. You must follow the local coronavirus rules and guidance.

The test must be taken in the 3 days before you depart. The results must be in English, French or Spanish.

You’ll need to show the test results when you check in to travel or board your plane, train or ferry. You may also be asked to show them when you arrive.

[Lily the Pink]

98elise said:

A bit like now

Red list travel to the UK said:

You must have proof of a negative coronavirus test to travel to the UK - even if you’re a UK citizen.

If your test result is positive you must not travel. You must follow the local coronavirus rules and guidance.

The test must be taken in the 3 days before you depart. The results must be in English, French or Spanish.

You’ll need to show the test results when you check in to travel or board your plane, train or ferry. You may also be asked to show them when you arrive.

So do you expect that to change at some point to allow for vaccination status to remove the need for such tests ?

[g4ry13]

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

[Taylor James]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

It seems the conventional wisdom is employers would be able to discriminate on the basis of vaccinations for new hires but not require existing employees to be vaccinated or disclose medical records. If the vaccine is required regularly like flu vaccines then presumably they wouldn't be able to demand proof that someone was vaccinated.

Nor might they want to be harassing otherwise good employees or turning down applications from skilled people for such a reason, especially when the hoo ha dies down. Despite the uncompromising online persona of the PH tycoons plenty of people at all levels harbour strange personal views and habits.

Not sure how things will stand if someone objects on religious grounds. At what point would it become religious discrimination? And what proof could companies realistically ask for that their particular interpretation of their faith couldn't reasonably be taken that way?

I still suspect it will all come to nought. Things seem to be getting more normal by the day and the covidian fundamentalists are sounding ever more like the hardcore remainers coming to terms (or not) with the fact that they were not going to get their way.

Your first and third paragraphs are contradictory and highlight just one of the issues.

[otolith]

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

[Taylor James]

98elise said:

Taylor James said:

Gadgetmac said:

Taylor James said:

Nickgnome said:

Brave Fart said:

Jasandjules said:

Can I just check, you DO actually understand that someone who "can't" take the vaccine for medical reasons is "unvaccinated". This is the same status as the person who has decided not to??. I mean, this may sound like a very basic concept but you don't appear to be able to comprehend it.

So, please do explain to me how the unvaccinated by choice person can't be put at risk by the one who can't be vaccinated for their medical reasons IF the reverse is true.

I was wondering this too. If I say to the airline "I'm medically exempt and cannot take the vaccine", will they just say "OK Sir, have a nice flight"?
Surely it'll be the same as the mask exemption we currently have - you can, effectively, self certify. Or will a vaccine exemption be more rigorous?

Surely it is very straightforward. Those that are medically exempted from the vaccine, which will probably be a very small percentage will be required to take a PCR test before travel, in the same way as it is mandated now by some nations for all travellers.

Those that have no justifiable medical reason for not having the vaccine may or may not be allowed to travel. It will be up the the destination country and possibly the airline.

I suspect a level of rigour will be adopted for the next year or so until globally we see how his pandemic subsides for resurges due to mutations.

This forum is not remotely representative of the populous as a whole.

This gets funnier by the minute.

You'll need to give everyone a PCR test since we know that the vaccine doesn't provide immunity or a guarantee of no transmission. So we could have the spectacle of people being refused their seat whilst yelling "but I've been vaccinated. I've got a certificate, look!" Even better, they'll be allowed on, but not allowed off when they arrive at their destination because they've passed the test at one end and failed at the other.

I very much suspect that you won’t get the flight ticket unless you tick the vaccinated box long before you actually get to check in. Jeez.

Yes and then you'll need to be tested at check in or the gate or else your vaccination certificate isn't worth the paper it's written on. And then, at the gate, you could test positive, because vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity. Christ.

A bit like now

Red list travel to the UK said:

You must have proof of a negative coronavirus test to travel to the UK - even if you’re a UK citizen.

If your test result is positive you must not travel. You must follow the local coronavirus rules and guidance.

The test must be taken in the 3 days before you depart. The results must be in English, French or Spanish.

You’ll need to show the test results when you check in to travel or board your plane, train or ferry. You may also be asked to show them when you arrive.

The point is that the vaccination certificate is of only limited value and will at best enable you to book a flight. If the intention is to stop anyone travelling while they are infected (I am assuming it is) then everyone will need to be tested just prior to flying - at check in or at the boarding gate. This will inevitably result in some people who have the certificate discovering that they are also infected and therefore turned away and add to the general ballache that is travelling by plane.

[g4ry13]

otolith said:

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

So you agree there are a number of reasons to be hesitant about having something fairly experimental with no long term data injected into you but then believe anyone who is hesitant to take the risk is unfit to work at your company?

[voyds9]

Will these firms who required staff to have the jab be demanding vaccine passports or refuse to serve customers who aren't vaccinated.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

Would you get rid of that employee though?

[CraigyMc]

g4ry13 said:

So you agree there are a number of reasons to be hesitant about having something fairly experimental with no long term data injected into you but then believe anyone who is hesitant to take the risk is unfit to work at your company?

The human trials started in April 2020.

Out of interest, how long would there need to be data for, in order for you to be happy with that aspect of this?

[g4ry13]

CraigyMc said:

g4ry13 said:

So you agree there are a number of reasons to be hesitant about having something fairly experimental with no long term data injected into you but then believe anyone who is hesitant to take the risk is unfit to work at your company?

The human trials started in April 2020.

Out of interest, how long would there need to be data for, in order for you to be happy with that aspect of this?

I'd like to see some longer term data before making a decision. 5-10 years should give some idea about medium-long term effects.

As someone who is low risk (by definition) i'm comfortable in biding my time.

[CraigyMc]

purplepenguin said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

Would you get rid of that employee though?

Ooh, can I answer this one?
It's entirely feasible I'd ask some more questions subtly over a period of time to gauge the individual's grip on reality.

• Do you believe intelligent aliens live among us?
• What do you think of 5G?
• What have the illuminati been up to recently?

Just to understand the individual's perceptual universe, figure out how their bullstometer is tuned.

[CraigyMc]

g4ry13 said:

CraigyMc said:

g4ry13 said:

So you agree there are a number of reasons to be hesitant about having something fairly experimental with no long term data injected into you but then believe anyone who is hesitant to take the risk is unfit to work at your company?

The human trials started in April 2020.

Out of interest, how long would there need to be data for, in order for you to be happy with that aspect of this?

I'd like to see some longer term data before making a decision. 5-10 years should give some idea about medium-long term effects.

As someone who is low risk (by definition) i'm comfortable in biding my time.

Kinda funny, I never really thought of day traders as being low-risk. Fair enough, if that's how you see things.