We’re publishing an original piece today by Dr Niall McCrae, a mental health practitioner and trade union rep, about what health care workers can do to resist if they’re told by their employers that they have to have a Covid vaccine as a condition of continuing to be employed. He says there are three areas in which they can push back: proportionality, safety and equity. Here’s an extract from the section on equity:
The employer should not engage in discriminatory practice. If a vaccine requirement is introduced, the first task of the worker is to check her employment contract: does it give the employer the right to impose medical interventions on staff? For any change of contract, both parties would need to agree and sign. If summoned to a meeting, the worker should ask the manager to confirm the employer’s position:
* If an employee has a legitimate reason to refuse the vaccine, will this be accepted?
* If the employer demands that an employee takes the vaccine against her will, under threat of dismissal, would that be coercion (and breach of contract)?The employer/manager may believe that vaccines can be mandated, but this is not necessarily so. While the Government is considering changing the law to enable employers to insist on vaccination of care staff working with vulnerable people, under current legislation this could be deemed unlawful. Compulsion could be experienced as intrusive or bullying. Also, it is arguably discriminatory in terms of sex and race, as women and workers of black/minority ethnicity are disproportionately affected by mandatory vaccination policies.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I feel the need to point out once again: If you set the precedent that an employer has the right to demand that an employee must undergo an unnecessary, unwanted medical procedure or else you terminate their employment, then that means that employers can now demand that their staff (female or otherwise) must undergo breast enlargement surgery, as an example, or lose their job. This is an absolutely insane precedent, and if it is set i really, REALLY wish someone goes through with that.
“must undergo breast enlargement surgery, as an example, or lose their job. ”
Or go on “Race training” courses. Which they already do.
The employer wants a particular type of employee that follows their particular ideology. If you don’t fit that you’ll be let go.
Isn’t that the free market working? Go find an employer where they don’t ask for stupid things.
Or become that employer.
Race training isn’t a medical procedure (even though it might feel like a lobotomy). And a free market economy only works if it’s completely free. You can’t have a free market for employers to demand anything they want from employees, but then restrict the market so that it’s very hard to open a business, and therefore employees don’t have a choice of employer.
It’effing experimental for another 2 years.
Noone can fire you if you don’t take until then.
That’s the US unions position currently heard in courts there.
If an employee agrees to have the jab providing the employer signs a liability form that will pay up to, say£1 million, for any side effects lasting longer than a month depending on severity – can the employee still be sacked since they’re not refusing to have the jab?Obviously if the risks to the employee are so low from having the jab the risks are equally low for the employer.
”A legitimate reason”? How much more subjective can that be?
“If an employee has a legitimate reason to refuse the vaccine….”
This surely approaches the issue from the wrong end. The employer needs to have the legitimate reason.
And, from that point of view, starting with the Nuremberg Protocols and associated agreements, medical ethics and moving on to the actual need and actual efficacy/risk reduction of these particular concoctions, any reasoning to such an end would have to be bent.
The case should be a no-brainer. But are the judiciary up to the standards in certain other countries in terms of intellectual grasp of scientific evidence? Some of Jonathan Sumption’s comments on the issue have been a bit flaky.
At first reading of the above excerpt it is impossible not to feel (as Rick H points out) that Dr McCrae is approaching this issue from the wrong end of the stick. Likewise (as Catee argues) if coercion is involved by the employer then indemnity must be forthcoming from the same employer with respect to the risk factor.
Quite why TY has chosen this particularly misleading short extract (when space is no consideration) is open to conjecture. Nevertheless on going to the longer article one finds:
‘From an ethical perspective, the employer’s risk assessment should not only relate to staff not being vaccinated, but also to the risk from taking the vaccine. The employer or representative may ask the manager the following questions:
Longer-term safety is unknown because these vaccines remain experimental.’
To my mind these key point should have been highlighted in the extract, not excluded.
… and, perhaps crucially : How does the volume of short-term reported side effects compare with other medicines at this point?
And even if those reported side effects via the MHRA Yellow Card scheme are accurate, and they are not (see below), why should it be the call of an employee (or any vaxx recipient) to accept an existential risk based on incomplete and/or inaccurate information for a still experimental treatment that Big Pharma itself refuses to indemnify?
Regarding the reporting of adverse reactions, the government website itself states:
https://bit.ly/3alqVkO
Coercion is illegal for tried, tested and approved medications – except in the most tightly defined situations. Coercion in any circumstances for an experimental treatment would have been unthinkable even 15 months ago, and yet here we are…
I can’t even be arsed to read the article, the headline is enough. F off
Yes it’s the usual not so sceptical vaccination slant in the headline. Is this site is intentionally committing suicide. Realistically donations must have fallen off a cliff, but is funding coming from somewhere more central?
Those not taking the vaccine will be fired.
And when the case is put in front of a tribunal, the tribunal will not be sympathetic to anti-vaxx position. Therefore they will not get an award of damages.
Always remember there is no law without enforcement. None of the arguments put forward have had any traction at the government level. Why would you think those arguments would have any traction in a tribunal?
There is no right not to be sacked. Just an opportunity for monetary compensation.
So let me just get this straight. When Mengele experimented on prisoners of war he wasn’t at fault, it was the prisoners who were anti-medical experiments?
The Nazis were right simply because they were the Government of the time, and no one could counter what they were doing (and of course, even worse, YOU don’t think anyone should counter them) and all courts have upheld their actions since because they were correct in what they did? Interesting mein Herr.
Aside from all the ethics and morality that’s wrong about this. For an easy life, why don’t people just lie? From what I’ve gathered, you don’t get any kind of certificate so whether you’ve had the vaccine is between you and your GP. You’re allowed to opt out of them sharing your medical records with even other branches of the NHS eg A&E.
Given the sensitivity and confidentiality of your medical records has anyone ever been asked to disclose the contents to an employer? Maybe people in the military, fire arms handlers perhaps, spies. Definitely not everyone!
A couple of points, as far as uk employment law goes.
The employer does not have to be correct when decisions about an individual’s employment are made. They do however have to have a reasonable belief based on the information that is available to them at the time (the ‘balance of probability’). Where potential indirect discrimination is concerned, the employer needs to demonstrate their policy constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Doing the same as everyone else doesn’t usually cut it.
Many employers will fall down because they think that relying on the wisdom of the MSM is enough and won’t take steps to investigate for themselves. It’s always good for employees to ask the employer to explain their position and evidence underpinning it, if the employer can’t do that it won’t look good for them. And of course the employer needs to try to find something else for the employee to do before dismissing them, and again this is an area where many just don’t bother even trying.
Also, in the uk employers can do anything they like as long as their employees don’t challenge them. Those put to a detriment by their employer usually only have a limited from the event to make a tribunal or court application, and many just don’t do it – the hope is that the former employee will pick up another job quickly and forget all about it. Not quite as easy when the economy has tanked…
Those treated as self employed don’t have anywhere near the same protections, but can still claim discrimination. That’s a trick that cowboys eg Pimlico plumbers like to pull.
Perhaps when the employers realise that they can’t find enough staff because of their
Policies, the policies will change. Ie the market in action