Employer disadvantaging and threatening staff who haven’t had the vaccine

[MrsFCastle]

My partner works in health and social care. He isn’t an anti vaxxer. Just feels it’s too soon. His employer is furious and is threatening to stop offering shifts if they don’t get it. I’m genuinely concerned about his job security. Can they do this? Helpful replies only please. This isn’t a thread about anti/pro vax.

The fact that some behaviour was not previously a problem, at the time of the contract, ought never to take precedence over safety

I suspect that, when it happens, this is what the argument will turn on

As said though, I just worry what the outcome will be if those who are eligible still refuse the jabs. No doubt employers can redeploy some to other roles, but what if they don't want to be moved - or if the only remaining option is to fire them?

And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell.*

... in order to stimulate antibody production! It's not a 'chemical pathogen'. mRNA is messenger RNA - we have billions of mRNAs in our bodies at any time. It's essential to life.

It's not a biologic system

So what is mRNA if not a biological thing? You can't get more biological than that!

You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response.

I am super cautious about taking a newly-developed vaccine, but even I do not believe it's being injected to 'induce illness'. Ye Gods. I really think there is no reasoning with people who hold views like this. I know a couple of others and there is no explaining anything to them, even if it's heavily scientifically-referenced. They simply do not want to believe it.

the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check.

This has come from an American anti-vaxxer - we don't spell 'check' that way.

@Alfaix

I work in Dentistry and it is required to have been vaccinated against Hep B. What’s the difference? If you don’t want the vaccine, don’t work in healthcare.

But I assume you knew you had to be vaccinated against Hep B before you chose to work in dentistry. So there is a difference

How is it different? It’s still a vaccine! It still sets a precedent that the job requires being vaccinated against communicable diseases

It is untrue that all potential harm is known when entering any job. Perhaps there is a new form of HIV, or Hepatitis, or something called Covid19 comes along. Whatever it is, the dentists or others will wish to update their precautions to protect themselves and everyone else.

Different PPE, different sanitising procedures, or different vaccines, will be accepted as a new but essential aspect of their work. They won't sit in the pram throwing a tantrum. They won't demand to be kept on the payroll if they refuse.

@pointythings

NicolaC17 nitpicking about what is and is not a vaccine isn't helpful, and is an antivaxxer tactic. Also the Oxford vaccine is a classic vaccine, so your arguments fall down right there.

Can I see a source for your figure of 80% clinical adverse events following vaccination, and preferably one including definitions? Because I've had the vaccine and I don't consider a sore arm and a couple of days feeling grotty to be a 'clinically adverse event' that is outside the norm. The flu jab has a similar side effect profile. Many medications currently in full use have side effect profiles which are far, far worse.

Is it? I thought it was genetically modified Chimpanzee Adenovirus carrying synthetic DNA coding for the spike protein?

divided you're right. It's not an mRNA vaccine though.

But to be brutally honest I really shouldn't have bothered trying to refute the pile of BS NicolaC17 posted, especially since much of it was clearly lifted from an antivaxxer site.

youre both right, it's a vector vaccine, which is a type of vaccine that has been used for decades in vetinary vaccines. There are different types of vaccines - the older ones where you were injected with the actual virus, or a bit of it, have fallen out of favour, for obvious reasons, and newer more efficient nucleic acid vaccines such as mRNA ones (Pfizer) and viral vector ones (Oxford AZ) are coming to the fore, as they work better.

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/there-are-four-types-covid-19-vaccines-heres-how-they-work

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html#:~:text=The%20Oxford%2DAstraZeneca%20vaccine%20is,vaccine%20uses%20double%2Dstranded%20DNA.

LOL at nucleic acid vaccines aka mRNA vaccines not being a vaccine though. LOl. LOL. LOL amd PSML. That is literally all you can do in the face of such utter, utter bollox.

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-are-nucleic-acid-vaccines-and-how-could-they-be-used-against-covid-19

Vaccine - A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease. A vaccine typically contains a biological preparation from disease-causing microorganism, or since the beginning of the 21st century, made synthetically that resembles it.

Any of the various types of vaccine that cause the body to develop immunity to something when you inject it into a body is "a biological preparation"

Seriously ..... LOL!

A bit like I'm worried about the sheeple believing all the propaganda that gets spouted!!!!!

@NicolaC17

To everyone saying that I am anti-vaccine and therefore have no validity. I am fully vaccinated and so are my children, however, I don’t agree with taking a vaccine that the majority of the population will only have mild symptoms from and is still only authorised for emergency use and not fully tested on the long term effects. And as I’ve already said the vaccine won’t stop transmission or is getting it so what exactly am I getting it for then?

They have already tested the Phizer vaccine on rats and it showed a decline in fertility but because it was in the perimeters they allow it isn’t reported as a problem. To me that’s ludicrous.

Very interesting read! Thanks for that info. And no, I'm not anti vaxxer. You've got some clear facts there... funny how some people dont (want to) believe it

@rozee83

A bit like I'm worried about the sheeple believing all the propaganda that gets spouted!!!!!

Me too. It sometimes feels like an orchestrated campaign on here though. I don't think all is as it seems.

Absolutely nothing is as powerful and convincing in a discussion, nor as confidence inspiring, as the use of the word sheeple.
Honest Guv.

Facts

Honestly, can't you do better than that? You won't get paid with this piss poor effort.

Absolutely nothing is as powerful and convincing in a discussion, nor as confidence inspiring, as the use of the word sheeple. Honest Guv

Or spelling Pfizer wrong. Or using the phrase "I'm not an anti-Vaxer but..."

@Randomschoolworker19

I work in a school with CEV children, and like doctors or anyone else working with vulnerable people the expectation is to be vaccinated.

Honestly, if you work in such a sector I think it is grossly negligent and grounds for immediate dismissal unless you're medically unable to be vaccinated and have an exemption.

This

These workers were supposedly heroes back in Clap for Carers days when they kept working with ineffective PPE. Some of those who died would have been vaccine hesitant.

But now those same heroes are selfish and in the wrong job.

You will get nowhere treating this like a moral failing - it's a practical issue that there may be solutions to. I personally think time will make a difference in spite of the mocking it's received here.

Immediate dismissal is impractical. You think you can fire 30% of the workforce? I'd love to hear your plan on how to replace them.

twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1364961625728573459

[quote PreachyGreen]These workers were supposedly heroes back in Clap for Carers days when they kept working with ineffective PPE. Some of those who died would have been vaccine hesitant.

But now those same heroes are selfish and in the wrong job.

You will get nowhere treating this like a moral failing - it's a practical issue that there may be solutions to. I personally think time will make a difference in spite of the mocking it's received here.

Immediate dismissal is impractical. You think you can fire 30% of the workforce? I'd love to hear your plan on how to replace them.

twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1364961625728573459[/quote]
Bet more of them would have liked to have the opportunity not to die in the course of their employment. Just as most working now would prefer it if they weren't put at risk by colleagues/other staff who think they know more about vaccines than anybody else.

Bet more of them would have liked to have the opportunity not to die in the course of their employment. Just as most working now would prefer it if they weren't put at risk by colleagues/other staff who think they know more about vaccines than anybody else.

Of course, some of them will be at risk by their clients/service users as well.

@rwalker

Wouldn't bother joining union as it's retrospective issue tends to piss them off when people only join because they need them. It's like insuring your house for fire after it's burnt down and trying to claim .

They can't force him but if clients refused care off him (I would) then they would have to do something you can't expect them to keep paying him for not working .
They could possibly go for non coprable dismissal it's a kind of nobody fault but you can't do the job ( no clients want him).
Very grey area but even if they did dismiss him and won a case for unfair dismissal you aren't granteed your job back and might get a grand for hurt feelings no big claim for loss of career as he should be able to get another job in care .

I really think if he doesn't want jab he needs to change jobs .

Totally agree. I'm pretty sure my union requires that you are a member in good standing BEFORE the grievance you expect them to support you in.

The difference is this vaccine has gone through the proper trials over years, unlike the current ones that are still in trials that wont be finnished until 2023.

It is against the Council of Europes code to try to force or coerse someone to take the vaccine. It could be challenged in law and you would win. It is also against the Nuremberg code's recommendations.

Here you are. Its your human right to refuse especially a vaccine/gene therapy whose trials wont be finnished until 2023.

pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html

NeverDropYourMoonCup,

Just as most working now would prefer it if they weren't put at risk by colleagues

Any evidence for that claim? I suppose it may be true in some care settings but it's not what I'm hearing at work. I think most of our staff see it as a personal choice. I've only heard one member of staff say anything like that and it didn't lead to any more staff getting vaccinated in order to protect him.

You say other staff who think they know more about vaccines than anybody else.

But your anybody else may not be the same anybody else as theirs. They probably read/watch more info supporting their beliefs than not. Maybe most of the people in their circle think similar things.

In fact all an unvaccinated care worker needs to do to change from selfish to normal is move to France. I wonder how much berating of unvaccinated care staff is happening over on mamansnet or whatever the equivalent is called.

@digitaldays

Absolutely nothing is as powerful and convincing in a discussion, nor as confidence inspiring, as the use of the word sheeple. Honest Guv

Or spelling Pfizer wrong. Or using the phrase "I'm not an anti-Vaxer but..."

Or using five exclamation marks, which according to the late great Terry Pratchett is a sure sign of an insane mind.