Would You Take the Jab as Part of Your Employment Conditions or Trading Conditions to Run Your Business?

LImpulseMan on 26/11/2020 - 12:37
Last edited 26/11/2020 - 12:37

After reading all the debate on Qantas jab policy, though it would be interesting to get everyone's take from a different perspective.

While you have a choice to travel or not, earning an income is a different matter one would assume. Can you treat employment under the same 'NO JAB, NO PLAY' policy?

Would you take a jab as part of your employment conditions or trading conditions?

As an interesting point of discussion - One step further removed, could or should a restaurant lawfully refuse patrons not vaccinated?

Poll Options expired

  • 474
    Yes - i would take the jab as part of my employment conditions or business trading conditions
  • 140
    No - i would NOT take the jab as part of my employment conditions or business trading conditions
Education & Work

Comments

    • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 12:48

      Not going to stop them trying.

      Or just make it a lot harder. eg, the no vaccine but must quarantine at hotel at your own expense.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/11/2020 - 04:34
        +10

        Depends who's throwing the jab. I don't want to get my face rearranged.

    • stirlo on 26/11/2020 - 12:51
      +78

      Plenty of industries have professional requirements that require restrictions on rights of workers. Can you force someone to wear a hard hat? Or obtain a first aid certificate? Or hold a drivers license? No. But you don't have to employ people who choose not to do these things/have these qualifications.

      Vaccination is no different.

        • Bjingo on 26/11/2020 - 13:34
          +29

          Wait, why is getting an immunisation cruel? It is a little needle and doesn't hurt.

            • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 14:16
              +73

              @whooah1979: It is not without consent. You can say no, just means you can't work that job. Adults can understand consequences of decisions.

              • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 14:37
                -5

                @Quantumcat: How about all the people that have jobs now? Will the employer start sacking them if they exercise their rights?

                • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 18:53
                  +47

                  @whooah1979: Exercise your rights to not shower and to fart and burp out loud and see how long it is before you get sacked.

                  Freedom goes both ways. You're free to do what you want to do. Other people free to do what they want to do as well, including to not associate with you if they choose. Simple?

                  • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 19:00
                    -4

                    @p1 ama: It depends on how the workers are sacked. The FWO will ensure that the dismissal is done in accordance with the FW Act.

                  • This Guy on 27/11/2020 - 19:50

                    @p1 ama: Sound like you need a better boss.

              • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 18:35
                +4

                @Quantumcat:

                It is not without consent. You can say no, just means you can't work that job. Adults can understand consequences of decisions.

                Reminds of on an abortion debate in another forum. Even if abortion is illegal, you can still do it, it just means you go to jail. Adults can understand consequences of decisions.

                • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 18:50
                  +11

                  @ozhunter:

                  Even if abortion is illegal, you can still do it, it just means you go to jail.

                  Completely mischaracterised the original argument. Nobody is suggesting that we criminalise refusal to take a vaccine. Nobody is suggesting anyone go to jail, so your argument is moot.

                  The argument is whether a business can choose to not hire someone because they are not vaccinated. Newsflash, there are plenty of reasons why people don't get hired.

                  If you need an analogy, it's like choosing to have bad hygiene or not shower. It's not illegal, but I sure wouldn't hire someone who has bad hygiene.

                  Ultimately I support people's freedom to not get vaccinated, but I also support other people's freedom to not associate with people who may be a health hazard.

                  • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 19:04

                    @p1 ama: My comment was about him saying it is not without consent.

                    but I also support other people's freedom to not associate with people who may be a health hazard.

                    I don't consider a non-sick person a health hazard. If you do, maybe it should be added to the list of exceptions like race, religion when hiring someone.

                    • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 19:22
                      +13

                      @ozhunter: If they can transmit the virus to others then they are a health hazard.

                      Like letting raw chicken juice drip into cooked foods. All fine if the chicken doesn't carry salmonella, but could cause dozens of people to have gastro later if it does. Better to just store the raw chicken more safely in the first place.

                      • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 19:47
                        +2

                        @Quantumcat:

                        If they can transmit the virus to others then they are a health hazard.

                        By default, every human being is a health hazard. Also this would just give the government free rein to "force" everyone to be injected with drugs/vaccine.

                        I'd like to guarantee that I couldn't catch any disease, but I'd draw the line at "forcing" others to inject themselves with drugs/vaccine for my benefit. Moreso, when they you tell the statistics(assuming there isn't any fudging of numbers)

                        Like clinical trials, you could incentivize people to take the vaccine instead of depriving those who don't

                        • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 20:20
                          +9

                          @ozhunter: Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Not sure why you keep insisting that is the case 🤔

                          Are you also depriving someone if you insist they get a working with children check or police check? Or wear their hair short for safety? Or have a degree in a particular field or have a certain certificate? It is really the same thing. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but if you want to work in a place where everyone being vaccinated is safer, then you'll need to be vaccinated. If you don't want to be vaccinated, then you're free to work in a job that doesn't require it. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything or depriving anyone of anything.

                          This is nothing new, there are roles already that require vaccinations. You don't have people decrying that this is depriving people of anything. It will just be on a little wider scale now.

                    • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 21:23
                      +3

                      @ozhunter:

                      If you do, maybe it should be added to the list of exceptions like race, religion when hiring someone.

                      The reason why we have exceptions for race, sexual orientation…etc. is because we generally accept that those things are not choices.

                      On the other hand, we do not have exceptions for people who choose not to vaccinate, people who choose to have bad hygiene, people who choose to be a dick…etc. because those are choices. Even things like political tendencies are not protected. You can be fired for a lot of things.

                      There is a big difference between government mandated laws and private businesses and citizens doing what they wish. For example, you have the right to free speech. That means that the government cannot throw you in jail for expressing your opinion. However, you can certainly get fired for doing so.

                      • frewer on 27/11/2020 - 14:25
                        -3

                        @p1 ama:

                        The reason why we have exceptions for race, sexual orientation…etc. is because we generally accept that those things are not choices.

                        Be careful there, seem like you just says " pedophilia is an exceptions as well" …

              • Yorkshire-Man on 28/11/2020 - 08:58

                @Quantumcat: Spot on

            • Tech5 on 26/11/2020 - 15:03
              +20

              @whooah1979: Incorrect, medical personal are required to have up to date vaccinations and can be fired/moved to a non-patient contact role if they do not.

              • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 15:45
                -2

                @Tech5: Medical staff or other workers being vaccinated when working in facilities where they treat at-risk patients is reasonable.

                The bloke down in accounting or the local hairdresser doesn't.

            • Bjingo on 26/11/2020 - 15:06
              +3

              @whooah1979: I have not seen any legislation making it mandatory so everyone has a choice. If you don't want the vaccine don't fly with Qantas, or don't take a job where they require it as a pre-requisite. It does not even violate human rights as they can just say no to having it and choose a different company to work for.

              Cruel was the wrong choice of words as no one is intentionally causing the suffering of others as you have a choice whether you use their service/take that job or remain at risk.

              • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 15:51

                @Bjingo: How about those non-medical workers that are working right now? Do they get sacked if they don't want to get vaccinated?

                What Australia needs is clearly from the government whether this will become mandatory or not.

                • Bjingo on 26/11/2020 - 16:02
                  +2

                  @whooah1979: For that situation it would depend on particular circumstances of the workplace. As most the time getting immunised is for the benefit of those who cannot be immunised, ie people with cancer or aids or something else that compromises them.

                  Do they have staff who are immunocompromised and either not working or working from home? You would have to be an twat to not get a needle when co workers want to work too.

                  Do they interact with a large number of people on a daily basis? (bus driver or a checkout clerk)

                  Do they work in close proximity with others. (hairdressers, tailors)

                  I can only speculate as there is nothing on it yet but I have a sneaking suspicion it wont become mandatory but I think they will incentivise getting it.

            • tyme on 27/11/2020 - 23:32
              +1

              @whooah1979: You have the right to decline and make yourself less employable. Your choice.
              It's immunization to a lethal and economy crushing disease, not government mandated subdermal identification chips.

          • elgrande on 26/11/2020 - 18:28
            +7

            @Bjingo:

            Wait, why is getting an immunisation cruel? 

            No lollipop

        • askme69 on 26/11/2020 - 13:49

          Victorian?

        • Chandler on 26/11/2020 - 16:44
          +4

          Workers requiring to use PPE or be competent enough to perform tasks is not the same

          Why not? Immunisation is essentially competency training for your immune system - you get given a dead/ineffective virus to elicit an immune response so that if you come across the real thing, your body is trained to handle it.

          No different to CPR training - you get trained on what to do with a dummy so that if you come across a real person that needs CPR, you are trained to handle it.

          People have the right under common law to choose what they put in their body.

          And if you choose not to be vaccinated, your employer can choose to no longer employ you.

        • beade on 26/11/2020 - 17:04
          +5

          I had to prove I was immunised against multiple conditions to be able to work in a hospital, it wasn't for my protection it was for the sick patients in the hospital. Same goes for this policy, they're protecting the sick people who can't receive vaccinations in the destination location. Amazing job qantas

      • try2bhelpful on 26/11/2020 - 16:08
        +38

        Absolutely, when I worked for State Rivers and Water Supply there was a raft of injections we had to have including Typhoid, Hepatitis A, etc. they were designed to protect our health because we might come in contact with contaminated samples. I’m sick to the back teeth of the logic deficient, social media influencer followers who seem to be missing what is happening in the world, at the moment. Like all inoculations there are a certain group of people who can’t be inoculated so they are dependant on people who can, to step up, so we can get the herd immunity that stops the virus reaching them. You want to see heartbreak look at the video of a young baby dealing with whooping cough. I donate blood/plasma regularly so my skin is “penetrated” regularly for the good of other people. I look forward to a vaccine and being able to travel again. To not looking askance when someone near me coughs. Reading here some people have some really odd ideas.

        • goraygo on 26/11/2020 - 21:43
          +2

          Good on you. Thank you for donating plasma regularly. You are legend.

        • macfudge on 28/11/2020 - 14:07

          I wish I could upvote this comment more than once! Absolutely spot on!

      • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 22:06
        +4

        Can you force someone to wear a hard hat?
        Vaccination is no different.

        I can take a hard hat off.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/11/2020 - 00:37

          Not when you are working in a dangerous situation, if you are clever enough.

          • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 10:33
            +3

            @try2bhelpful: You're confusing can with should.

            • try2bhelpful on 28/11/2020 - 11:39
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: To a certain degree not getting a vaccine is like not wearing your hard hat and then knocking a few off others people’s heads whilst you are at it.

              The really sad part it is usually the children of deluded parents that suffer the most.

              • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 14:30

                @try2bhelpful: If people have taken the vaccine, why are the worried about other not having it? According to trusty old Pfizer it's safe as houses.

                • greatlamp on 28/11/2020 - 16:09
                  -2

                  @brendanm: Because we have the ability to stamp out this virus, instead of it becoming a permanent presence in society that regularly empties out the old folks homes.

                  It's not that hard to understand. No-one is trying to put a microchip in your arm

                  • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 22:11
                    +4

                    @greatlamp: Please show where I've said anything about a microchip, at all.

                    Why is it that you people can't wrap your head around the fact that people may be in favour of vaccines in general, just not ones that are rushed out, where we don't know if there are any long term ill effects. You seem to think the world is black and white, either full on antivax nutters, or full on "take the vaccine or you are literally Hitler" nutters.

                • try2bhelpful on 28/11/2020 - 16:16

                  @brendanm: Because there are people in the community who can’t take the vaccine, this is the concept of herd immunity. People who are immunocompromised, very young children, etc. If people don’t get inoculated then these people could be compromised.

        • Blitzfx on 29/11/2020 - 11:56

          I can take a hard hat off.

          My concern is who we are getting the vaccine from. General public don't know the consequences of a bad vaccine that has been developed in haste.

      • Spamazon on 28/11/2020 - 08:28
        +2

        Covid is easily treated and not a danger to 99% of the population. The majority of people don't require a vaccination. So no it shouldn't be forced on people.

    • Drakesy on 26/11/2020 - 13:13
      +30

      Denying people the right to be in a safe working environment is a violation of the UDHR as well. Forcing people to work with people who are potentially carrying COVID against their will is a violation of the UDHR.

      • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 13:18
        -3

        The only way to resolve this is for the government to make the vaccine mandatory.

        • Drakesy on 26/11/2020 - 13:20

          Or a precedent to be set in the legal system that if you come to work and can demonstrate you contracted it at work and the workplace didn't enforce measures such as this then i feel this will have ramifications throughout the entire industry.

          Unfortunately in some cases money is the only deterrent

        • bawdygeorge on 27/11/2020 - 07:17
          +2

          No, that’s not the only way to resolve this.

        • AustriaBargain on 27/11/2020 - 18:22
          +1

          Put it in our Coca Cola, then everyone will get a dose.

      • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 14:18
        +6

        Are you at work at the moment, with no vaccine?

        • Drakesy on 26/11/2020 - 14:27
          +1

          Because there isn't one available yet?
          Pretty hard to force people to get a non-existent vaccine.

          Can't be done for negligence if the mitigation option isn't available.

          Simplez

          • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 14:28
            +7

            @Drakesy: So you are perfectly happy to go to work now, and obviously think there is a very low risk of something happening. Yet everyone should be forced to take a vaccine once it's available?

            • Drakesy on 26/11/2020 - 14:31
              +1

              @brendanm: Um yes?

              Is there a problem with this?
              Would say it's a logical chain of thought.

              If there's an option to better risk manage then it should be taken, in lieu of this, current covid controls are adequate such as working from home, social distancing and hand sanitizer.

              • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 14:33
                +4

                @Drakesy: If you were that worried, to the point that people should be vaccinated against their will, I would expect that you would be refusing to work, due to the risk of getting covid.

            • Krankite on 26/11/2020 - 15:30
              +10

              @brendanm: Most people who have worked around risk assessment will know the phrase "As low as reasonably practicable", this means the risk isn't avoided but you have taken all reasonable steps. At the moment requesting vaccination against covid isn't a reasonable request as there isn't one widely available and tested. When the vaccine is available people are going to have to make a call about whether the difficulty in ensure people are vaccinated reduces the risk enough to enforce it.

              At the moment with current levels of Covid in the community in Australia I don't see a requirement for vaccination to be a requirement. At some point though the government is going to have to make a call between either stopping quarantine and vacinating or maintaining quarantine and not vaccinating.

              • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 15:34
                +2

                @Krankite: How many active cases of covid are there currently in Australia? People are acting as if numbers are going to explode for some reason if people don't get a vaccine when it's available. How is that any different from now?

                • bawdygeorge on 27/11/2020 - 07:19
                  +4

                  @brendanm: How many active cases were there in Victoria before things got out of hand there?

                  • brendanm on 27/11/2020 - 07:46
                    +2

                    @bawdygeorge: It's almost like their problems stemmed from people coming into the country with it, as well as security guards fornicating with infected people.

                    • smartazz104 on 27/11/2020 - 12:29
                      +1

                      @brendanm:

                      as well as security guards fornicating with infected people

                      This hasn't been proven, just a rumour.

                    • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:39
                      +3

                      @brendanm: Shhh dont speak logic and truth, globalism is wonderful and so enriching.

                    • Burnsy on 28/11/2020 - 02:25
                      +1

                      @brendanm: It's almost like you're assuming we won't have more problems like this? People are not perfect.
                      Look at other places that keep getting a case here and there, and having to do drastic lockdowns to subdue it - or not, and it gets out of hand again.
                      The real danger with this virus is that it is highly infectious, even while you are asymptomatic.

                      Now imagine how opening up the country borders will go. Or are you suggesting we stay a closed border island, and cripple the tourism industry?
                      Or maybe you have just been enjoying the long lockdowns, and want more?

                      Quite simply, they might ASK or ENCOURAGE people to get the vaccine once it has been made, with the exception of some industries that require it, then you can CHOOSE to work in those industries. Yes, you may have to weigh up the cost/benefit of reskilling, over a simple immunisation. But, again, you get that CHOICE.

                      • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 07:29

                        @Burnsy: We haven't had any lockdown in Queensland. Contrary to Victorians popular belief, they aren't the only state in Australia.

                        • LOTU on 28/11/2020 - 18:37
                          +1

                          @brendanm: Didn't QLD lock down the state borders? Yes youve had a lock down in QLD.

                          • whooah1979 on 28/11/2020 - 18:41
                            +1

                            @LOTU: A border closure isn't a lockdown. NSW had a border closure with VIC and people were still free to do whatever they wanted as long as they practised social distancing.

                          • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 22:07

                            @LOTU: Haha no we haven't. We have just gone about our business. We didn't have a dictator telling us we had to stay inside and wear masks.

                        • frewer on 28/11/2020 - 21:37
                          -2

                          @brendanm: Viet Nam only quarantine the sick, and let's the healthy go about. Only Mr Dan lock up people in so calls demon-cracy country … go figure

      • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:37

        That makes no sense, if u want to take the vaccine go for it. Then your "protected" right, however it seems your statement admits that the vaccine doesnt work as you need others to take it. Doesnt make sense…

      • devize on 28/11/2020 - 15:24
        +1

        But if you have been vaccinated what do you care if the people around you have been or not?

        • Ughhh on 28/11/2020 - 17:07
          +2

          Because people can be decent creatures who are capable for caring for others who are disadvantaged or unable to protect themselves ie. immunocompromised people.

          • ozhunter on 28/11/2020 - 21:57
            -1

            @Ughhh: Lock them down? Maybe for good? We don't want them to take the risk of dying. That lowers the chances of getting infected right? It also doesn't involve "forcing" others to get injected with drugs.

            Win win all round?

            • Ughhh on 29/11/2020 - 02:19

              @ozhunter: Hahahaha!

              The immunocompromised probably need to see the doctor more frequently than you. Probably suffers more mentally than you. You're nice and healthy, you can stand being locked down. More time for you to troll on the Internet too, might as well make it full time if not already. Win win.

              • ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 02:50

                @Ughhh: You're against locking them down to keep them safe?

                Are they leaving the house now even without a vaccine?

                • Ughhh on 29/11/2020 - 02:56

                  @ozhunter: Your comprehension is shocking.

                  • ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 02:59

                    @Ughhh: I'm gonna take that as a yes.

                    Everyone can have different physical and mental at various times of the day.

                    You're nice and healthy, you can stand being locked down.

                    But I'm not the one that needs to be

                    • Ughhh on 29/11/2020 - 03:04

                      @ozhunter:

                      I'm gonna take that as a yes

                      You like to hear what you want to hear, see what you want to see. Explains your repeated nonsense. As if it wasn't clear enough

                      But I'm not the one that needs to be

                      Your repeated nonsense says otherwise.

            • p1 ama on 29/11/2020 - 02:44
              +1

              @ozhunter:

              It also doesn't involve "forcing" others to get injected with drugs.

              Nobody is forcing you to be injected with anything you idiot. Stop peddling nonsense.

              • ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 02:48

                @p1 ama: I put the quotation marks for you, lol.

                What's your definition of force?

                If someone has a gun to their head, are they actually being forced?

                • p1 ama on 29/11/2020 - 02:53

                  @ozhunter: Yes, you are, by the person putting the gun to your head. Who's forcing you to take a vaccine?

                  • ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 03:00
                    -2

                    @p1 ama: How is that forcing? Because there is a negative consequence?

                    merriam-webster: to cause (a person) to give in to pressure

                    thefreedictionary: To compel through pressure or necessity

                    cambridge dictionary: to make something happen or make someone do something difficult, unpleasant, or unusual, especially by threatening or not offering the possibility of choice:

    • iforgotmysocks on 26/11/2020 - 13:52
      +3

      Hi Karen

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join