Discussion
InitialDave said:
Biggy Stardust said:
He's not forcing you to comply with his wishes but you're trying to force him to comply with yours. Who's the bad guy in a situation like that?
Him.In the meantime I will suggest that you want to enforce your wishes on those who are letting you do as you please and therefore you're the bad guy in this unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Colonel Cupcake said:
What about people who develop cancer or have a heart attack or are involved in a serious car accident?
Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
What the hell are you talking about? In a thread where I said anti-vaxxers risk getting long Covid even if they are in an age-group where they are unlikely to die, you extrapolate this to cancer, car accidents and getting pregnant. WTF?Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
cqueen said:
Chimune said:
Good. I don't want to sit next to some anti vaxxer moron while trying to do my job.
If you've had the jab, why do you care?Also my job requires, analytical skills, deductive abilities and the ability to accept what your own eyes are telling you... So if an Anti-vaxxer is sitting next to me at work, I'm going to have to do their bloody job as well as mine.
But I'm not concerned... I suspect most anti-vaxxers are already long term benefit recipients.
CzechItOut said:
V1nce Fox said:
Suspect a lot of revised contracts (end of this one, rollover into new one) will be attempted too. This doesn't look good.
I don't even think companies will need to issue new contracts. I've just looked a one of the contract templates we use here and it includes a fairly generic "Health & Safety" clause stating that the employee has a duty to observe the rules and follow policies at all times.Therefore, all companies need to do is show they have performed a risk assessment that requires a Covid vaccination to ensure they are maintaining their duty of care towards employees, customers and general public and update their policies accordingly.
The danger presented by covid - which we already know to be negligible with some groups and an average mortality in the 80s
The role and how you would show that holding that role would endanger people (plus see above)
There are already examples where vaccination is mandatory and they are few and far between because the criteria are exceptional e.g hepatitis jabs for people working in operating theatres.
Now make the case for North Sea divers.
Clumsy employers will find themselves on the wrong end of of constructive dismissal claims based on current employment law. There's also some important legislation in EU law to which we are still subject. As with so many things, the employer will have to show that their actions are reasonable.
Iminquarantine said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
What about people who develop cancer or have a heart attack or are involved in a serious car accident?
Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
What the hell are you talking about? In a thread where I said anti-vaxxers risk getting long Covid even if they are in an age-group where they are unlikely to die, you extrapolate this to cancer, car accidents and getting pregnant. WTF?Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
Iminquarantine said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
What about people who develop cancer or have a heart attack or are involved in a serious car accident?
Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
What the hell are you talking about? In a thread where I said anti-vaxxers risk getting long Covid even if they are in an age-group where they are unlikely to die, you extrapolate this to cancer, car accidents and getting pregnant. WTF?Aren't these people also a burden on the state and their employers?
You'll be saying next that women ought not be employed lest they dare to become pregnant and become a burden on the state and their employers.
Flippin' Kipper said:
What about those who can't have the jab for one reason or another?
My fear is that they will be discriminated against, which would be one of my main concerns about such a policy. If you apply for a job and don’t have proof of vaccination you will presumably have to disclose the fact that you have an underlying health problem, which may adversely affect your chances. I’m in favour of the vaccine but this is a step too far and I expect a backlash or a thriving black market in fake certificates.
Ntv said:
I regard the long covid "risk" as only slightly greater than the risk of being attacked by a deranged blue whale while walking to shops
Well then you would be incorrect as nobody get attacked by whales on the way to theshop, but many people including young people report long Covid. On the ‘MSM not reporting the risk of long covid on virus challenge volunteers’. I watched ‘MSM’ - the TV - yesterday and there was a discussion on the risk of long Covid to trials participants.
dmahon said:
La Liga said:
Which is fine, but then there may be potential employment consequences for you and others who choose that route.
The topic under discussion is if that’s reasonable and ethical considering the complete lack of logic in the argument.I personally wouldn’t work for a company that mandated this, but I think it’s totally unethical.
JagLover said:
Which assumes the vaccinations provide "sterilising immunity", which hasn't been proven.
All the various studies have proven is that taking the vaccine significantly reduces your own personal chances of serious infection.
Not sure that’s the case JL, I believe there’s evidence from Israel that the Pfizer jab is sterilising and further evidence that the vaccine is reducing transmission rates. We should know the impact here any day now. All the various studies have proven is that taking the vaccine significantly reduces your own personal chances of serious infection.
Chimune said:
Good. I don't want to sit next to some anti vaxxer moron while trying to do my job.
I've asked my professional body about this. They say my employers may require me to get the jab or lose my job.I then asked if I would be required to see clients who hadn't had the jab. Yes I am required to see them as the PPE will be enough protection.
At that point my irony meter broke.
voyds9 said:
I've asked my professional body about this. They say my employers may require me to get the jab or lose my job.
I then asked if I would be required to see clients who hadn't had the jab. Yes I am required to see them as the PPE will be enough protection.
At that point my irony meter broke.
What do you do?I then asked if I would be required to see clients who hadn't had the jab. Yes I am required to see them as the PPE will be enough protection.
At that point my irony meter broke.
V1nce Fox said:
La Liga said:
don't see a lack of logic of having collective workforce resilience to minimise business disruption.
LL you're a proper grown up law person; if you had to put your money anywhere, how do you see this playing out?This sounds like it could be a complex mix of employment, contract, discrimination and human rights laws.
If I had to guess I imagine it'll be circumstantial as to whether it's legal or not.
BV would be ideal to speculate if he sees this, but I imagine he'll qualify it and say you'd have to find out in court.
Iminquarantine said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
Oh, silly me. I forgot that cancer recovery rates are measured in days, not months.
The problem with your reply is it still totally unrelated to anything in this thread. An illness you are referring to just might have a few weeks recovery in a small number of cases.
An illness I am referring to definitely does have a few weeks, nay, months recovery in a significant number of cases.
What's the difference?
La Liga said:
V1nce Fox said:
La Liga said:
don't see a lack of logic of having collective workforce resilience to minimise business disruption.
LL you're a proper grown up law person; if you had to put your money anywhere, how do you see this playing out?This sounds like it could be a complex mix of employment, contract, discrimination and human rights laws.
If I had to guess I imagine it'll be circumstantial as to whether it's legal or not.
BV would be ideal to speculate if he sees this, but I imagine he'll qualify it and say you'd have to find out in court.
I'll put some crochet backed driving gloves under a box propped up with a stick and see if I can trap him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff