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

- - - - ImpulseMan on 27/11/2020 - 15:19
        
        +2
        
        @try2bhelpful: Maybe it doesn't have to be so absurd that a nerd made a lot of money and now he actually wants to help the world with it? - instead of taking the money to his grave or corrupting his kids with it?
        
        try2bhelpful on 27/11/2020 - 18:33
        
        @ImpulseMan: Sorry, I meant I wish I wasn’t joking about the nut job conspiracy mob. Frankly, I think Bill Gates is doing something really terrific with his money. Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that.
- Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:48
  
  +1
  
  That question makes no sense. The question is what is in the syringe and how will that react to my biology.
- SlavOz on 28/11/2020 - 17:07
  
  Nobody is claiming that the vaccine us going to give you COVID lol. I don't give a shit about COVID. I'm in my 20s and frankly many of my elder community members (55+) had it and were fine. No they weren't biologically blessed. One was an alcoholic with diabetes, another is a long term smoker who suffered a stroke over a decade ago.
  
  I'm fine with catching COVID. Bring it on. What I'm not fine with is an artificial mixture of drugs rushed to market in 11 months with no certainty on their effectiveness or human safety. No thanks.
  - try2bhelpful on 28/11/2020 - 17:31
    
    There are plenty of “healthy” people who are getting long Covid. You won’t know how your body will react until you get infected.
    - SlavOz on 29/11/2020 - 09:36
      
      and you won't know how your body will react until you get jabbed. What's the difference?
      - try2bhelpful on 29/11/2020 - 10:46
        
        @SlavOz: The difference is that it is very rare that an inoculation is worse than the disease itself. I would rather have an inoculation against TB than take my chances with TB.
        
        ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 13:06
        
        @try2bhelpful:
        
        I would rather have an inoculation against TB than take my chances with TB.
        
        I'd probably be the same.
        
        Not with the covid and the hastily produced vaccine though.
        
        try2bhelpful on 29/11/2020 - 13:14
        
        @ozhunter: Actually Covid is going through all the processes it should be, it is just Government’s around the world have thrown more money and effort to shorten the timeline. Frankly, I won’t be lining up for the first batch, but I won’t be waiting a long time either, There will be a mass inoculation in places like China, America, India etc so we should know of any side effects pretty quickly.
        
        ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 13:18
        
        @try2bhelpful:
        
        Frankly, I won’t be lining up for the first batch
        
        Why? Pandemic not bad enough? You don't actually trust it is safe?
        
        More money being thrown it at it can also be a bad thing. Imagine how much money will be given to whoever develops a good enough vaccine first.
        
        More money doesn't help with testing long term effects.
        
        try2bhelpful on 29/11/2020 - 13:54
        
        -1
        
        @ozhunter: Being “wary” is natural even if “logic clearly dictates” the inoculation will be a much better proposition than the current state. In my case I would only delay by a couple of months, if that. We don’t have a large amount of the disease, currently, and I’m not likely to be travelling soon.
        
        There is always a trade off with anything like a vaccine. There can be people who have side effects from the inoculation, which is why you get the “seed” for the anti vaxxers, however, these are very small numbers compared to those impaired by the disease itself. Look at the history of diseases like measles. Look at old cemeteries, the graves are full of kids with diseases that we now inoculate against.
        
        Yes, more money could be a bad thing but it isn’t, necessarily, a bad thing. As a general rule the more resources provided to medical groups the more likely they are to get a breakthrough; particularly if the groups are cooperating to cut off blind alleys. Rushing to market, and putting out something dangerous, isn’t good for the long term bottom line of any company.
        
        Have a look at the studies around the long term affects of SARS, and some of affects of Covid-19 that will impact people for the long term. There is a significant number of infected people that are suffering chronic fatigue, organ damage, neurological problems, etc. Life is, always, a trade off.
        
        I’m happy for people not to have the inoculation as long as they are willing to live with the restrictions this means to them. That there may be jobs they can’t get, airlines they can’t use, accomodation places that turn them away, people who may refuse to let their kids play with your kids. You make choices you live with consequences.
        
        ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 23:16
        
        -1
        
        @try2bhelpful:
        
        even if “logic clearly dictates” the inoculation will be a much better proposition than the current state.
        
        You don't know that. Just because other vaccines are safe, doesn't necessarily mean this one will be.
        
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241
        
        Yes, more money could be a bad thing but it isn’t, necessarily, a bad thing.
        
        Massive profits to whoever gets an effective enough vaccine first is concerning.
        
        Rushing to market, and putting out something dangerous, isn’t good for the long term bottom line of any company.
        
        It's good for the current owners, executives, etc. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pfizer-inc-pfe-chairman-ceo-0…
        
        some of affects of Covid-19 that will impact people for the long term
        
        No one knows the long term effects of this mRNA speed-tested vaccine. That's the thing. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241
        
        I’m happy for people not to have the inoculation as long as they are willing to live with the restrictions this means to them. That there may be jobs they can’t get, airlines they can’t use, accomodation places that turn them away, people who may refuse to let their kids play with your kids. You make choices you live with consequences.
        
        While my job aren't concerned with my vaccinations, so in that way it doesn't affect me personally in that way as of now, but this paragraph is just utter nonsense. Just imagine if this was something like abortion. You're pretty much saying don't ever complain about anything, as you still have a choice.
        
        SlavOz on 30/11/2020 - 18:13
        
        @try2bhelpful: So this comes back to my OP, does that same rule apply to any business who wants to deny someone service on the grounds of "keeping people safe" (according to them).
        
        Eg - all car dealerships refusing service to people who've been caught speeding or driving recklessly. Technically that would make our roads safer so why not? Then pretty soon our entire country is divided and polarised like the US.
        
        This is the world you're wishing for so I just want you to be aware when it happens.
        
        Icecold5000 on 30/11/2020 - 20:38
        
        @SlavOz: Yep you got it. You should be refused service if you recklessly endanger the lives of other patrons through your own decision. No sense in other people having to risk their lives for you.
        
        ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 17:53
        
        @Icecold5000:
        
        recklessly endanger the lives of other patrons
        
        You making it sound like a healthy person without a vaccine is equivalent to someone with having the plague. Are you hysterical every time you leave your home not knowing if the people you interact with have every vaccination under the sun?
        
        Icecold5000 on 01/12/2020 - 18:18
        
        @ozhunter: And you sound like you’re totally ignorant of the past 8 months. Piss off with your covid denial. Hopefully airlines, restaurants and gyms will require proof of vaccination prior to entry.
        
        ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 19:29
        
        -1
        
        @Icecold5000: Didn't deny it, but as the days pass, it is more and more just some variant of the flu or at least behaves like it. Sorry for not being overwhelmed with fear like the media want you to be.
        
        Icecold5000 on 01/12/2020 - 19:35
        
        @ozhunter: It results in long term internal organ damage. You are wrong. If you think you are right go catch a dose.
        
        ozhunter on 02/12/2020 - 01:15
        
        -1
        
        @Icecold5000: So it's like the flu.
        
        Without knowing someone who has it, it would be incredibly hard if I go on with life as I normally do. The rate is just too low.
        
        Icecold5000 on 02/12/2020 - 06:53
        
        @ozhunter: Obviously you have trouble reading. Unfortunately for you politicians and health experts take a more educated view.
        
        Ughhh on 30/11/2020 - 20:57
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Eg - all car dealerships refusing service to people who've been caught speeding or driving recklessly.
        
        Since we're talking about qantas not allowing customers on their own property/plane, a more equivalent example would be:
        
        " > all car dealerships refusing service to people who've been caught speeding or driving recklessly on their property, potentially causing harm to their sales people, building, assets and other customers on site".
        
        SlavOz on 01/12/2020 - 11:09
        
        @Ughhh: Well, you can't buy a car without driving it off the lot, so if a dealership sold you a car that means you'd be momentarily driving it on their property. So they'd have a convicted dangerous driver endangering their staff and customers.
        
        They own their cars just like QANTAS owns their airplanes. Shouldn't they be allowed to decide who they sell to, or should they be forced to take on the risk of having a dangerous driver on operate a death machine on their property?
        
        It's the exact same concept.
        
        Ughhh on 03/12/2020 - 11:14
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Well, you can't buy a car without driving it off the lot, so if a dealership sold you a car that means you'd be momentarily driving it on their property. So they'd have a convicted dangerous driver endangering their staff and customers.
        
        Lol. Your incoherent ramblings.
        
        I'll try to think like you for a second :
        If you happened to be a racist, and they sold you a car, that means they support and allow racism too. And the dealer is represents the whole brand (ie Holden), therefore the entire Holden is racist. GM who owns Holder, who everyone who is involved in manufacturing Holden cars are also racist. 🤔🤔🤔
        
        They own their cars just like QANTAS owns their airplanes. Shouldn't they be allowed to decide who they sell to, or should they be forced to take on the risk of having a dangerous driver on operate a death machine on their property?
        
        What's your point? You've finally understand companies can have their own terms to protect themselves and their staff, as long as its not discrimination?
        
        SlavOz on 03/12/2020 - 18:56
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        You've finally understand companies can have their own terms to protect themselves and their staff, as long as its not discrimination?
        
        Right, so I'll ask you once more and hopefully you don't side-step the question again. Would you be OK with a car dealership refusing service to anyone caught speeding? Or an energy company refusing service to an electrician who was responsible for a fatal accident at work? Or an internet provider refusing service to someone charged with online bullying?
        
        All of these things have the potential to save lives and last I checked they don't breach discrimination laws. So are we on the same page or are you simply allowing QANTAS to get away with refusing service on the basis of vaccinations out of ideological reasons?
        
        Ughhh on 04/12/2020 - 00:13
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        side-step the question again.
        
        lol a bit ironic. You keep using apples as examples when talking about oranges.
        
        Do you think Qantas implementing this rule is to save the world, or to protect their staff and their customers- something a PCBU is legally obligated to do to conduct a lawful business?
        
        Qantas is not requiring everyone to have proof of vaccination, but only for those who want to use their services. Using your ridiculous example, the equivalent would be a car dealership refusing to sell you a car because of how you drive/behave on their property or with their property (test drive). Do you have a problem with this?
        You have the right to protect yourself, business' have the right and the legal obligation to protect their staff and customers.
        
        Read this https://business.gov.au/People/Customers/Refusing-service.
        
        SlavOz on 04/12/2020 - 09:14
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        Qantas is not requiring everyone to have proof of vaccination, but only for those who want to use their services. Using your ridiculous example, the equivalent would be a car dealership refusing to sell you a car because of how you drive/behave on their property or with their property (test drive). Do you have a problem with this?
        
        Nope, QANTAS is not judging passengers based on what is happening on the flight, they are judging them based on what is happening outside the flight. Ie, the pandemic. They are automatically assuming that everyone is a health risk that needs to be controlled. That's literally no different to a car dealership assuming that (due to our high death toll) anyone who comes on their property is a reckless driver who shouldn't be given a car.
        
        This is the 3rd time now that you've shifted the goalposts. First QANTAS has the right to refuse because it's a safety risk - I pointed out that other businesses deal with potentially dangerous situations as well.
        
        Then you said no actually QANTAS has the right to refuse because it's their property - I pointed out other businesses have personal property which they should have the right to protect as well.
        
        Now you've just come up with even more workarounds to your original logic to suit your point. At this point it doesn't look like you're arguing in good faith or with any sort of moral/ideological consistency. You're a cheerleader for QANTAS and you want them (and supposedly any other business that aligns with your worldview) to have special legal powers and privileges not enjoyed by others.
        
        You are, by the definition of history, not a very nice person.
studentl0an on 27/11/2020 - 22:18

+2

I wouldn't take a vaccine that hasn't had the time to see what, if any, impacts there are on zygote development. I've taken all the others that have had plenty of time and not were not rushed through. This should be a perfectly rational view to have, let those who want it to have it, and let those who want to wait, wait?

I think waiting a year is perfectly rational. I don't think forcing others to take it, by forcing negative consequences such as career dismissal on them is a good idea for a society at the moment.
mrvaluepack on 27/11/2020 - 23:13

+1

When I worked for CSL, one of the requirements was to be vaccinated and be up to date with your hepatitis shots. No way around that requirement due to product quality assurance.

Can't see how this can be any different.
- try2bhelpful on 27/11/2020 - 23:17
  
  +3
  
  It’s a bit like having to mandate compulsory helmet laws for brains that aren’t smart enough to work it out for themselves.
stayhome on 27/11/2020 - 23:19

-1

Increase the Medicare levy on people who refuse the jab.
Spic3y on 28/11/2020 - 00:30

+4

I have happily worked two jobs in the past that had mandatory vaccination requirements so yes, I wouldn't mind being told to get the jab.
awaddell on 28/11/2020 - 00:44

+5

I will have to, as I am employed by the Health Dept, but I would regardless of where I worked. I am required to have the influenza vaccine every year and keep my other vaccines up to date as well. I am grateful that I am provided such health care for free. I am required to complete training every year on washing hands, its annoying, but I understand the greater good. Many places I have worked have had mandatory requirements. Its no big deal and these requirements are for the safety of myself and others.

Anyone who is worried about their personal freedoms are free to not work for organisations that want to protect the community.

Anti vaxers are free, they are free to believe thier conspiracy theories, free to fly their own planes, free to cure their own diseases and free to die as ignorant people.

I on the other hand belong to a community and care for my fellow humans, even those too stupid to care for themselves let alone care for others.
- try2bhelpful on 28/11/2020 - 00:55
  
  +2
  
  Thank you for your work in the health area and your intelligent approach to it.
Spamazon on 28/11/2020 - 08:38

Wouldn't it be easier, less costly if the at risk people get the vaccination? The the 99% don't need to worry?
- whooah1979 on 28/11/2020 - 08:51
  
  No. It makes more sense to give 99% of the population paracetamol when the other 1% have a headache.
  
  Don't worry about the cost. The Treasurer can print as many 0s and 1s they want.
  https://news.yahoo.com/australia-signs-two-more-covid-031925…
  
  That adds to the 85 million doses Australia has already committed to buy from AstraZeneca <AZN.L> and CSL Ltd <CSL.AX> should trials prove successful, taking the country's total anticipated outlay to A$3.2 billion ($2.3 billion).
- Ughhh on 28/11/2020 - 10:44
  
  +2
  
  The immunocompromised should take it?
[Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 09:28

+4

I see that a lot of people just like me are still worried about the long term side effects of the vaccine. After consulting with medical professionals (I would advise talking to some knowledgeable expert in physiology) I understand and feel more assured that the side effects of vaccines show up in the first few days or maybe weeks after vaccination, it is extremely rare (a way of saying anything is possible) for them to show side effects after years. However due to rigorous scientific rules for testing a vaccine, they still have to do it and keep all communication about the vaccine open and clear. I feel quite assured to be honest and I feel Australians are very lucky as a bunch to be provided with an effective vaccine by the government. Anti Vaxxers generally I have found do not have sound science to back their beliefs and they talk in anecdotal terms or even worse resort of ad hominem or other rubbish logical fallacies.

Please correct me if you are a medical professional and I am wrong.
- ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 13:14
  
  +1
  
  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241
  
  This is the first mRNA vaccine for humans? They've also fast-tracked it, so it's not so rigourous this time.
  - try2bhelpful on 29/11/2020 - 13:18
    
    They’ve been pretty close in the past, but the development got shutdown because the similar virus, at that time, ceased to be a threat. Fast tracked doesn’t, necessarily, mean not as rigorous, it could just mean “we threw more money at it”. We will know, one way or the other, relatively soon. This program will roll out world wide.
    - ozhunter on 29/11/2020 - 13:20
      
      +1
      
      Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.
      
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/cov…
      
      Not exactly reassuring. I wonder what other things they don't require.
      - try2bhelpful on 29/11/2020 - 14:08
        
        @ozhunter: That article was September 23rd. We are Now November 29th. It would be interesting to know what testing has been done in the last couple of months on efficacy, as well as safety.
    - p1 ama on 29/11/2020 - 23:38
      
      -1
      
      Fast tracked doesn’t, necessarily, mean not as rigorous, it could just mean “we threw more money at it”. We will know, one way or the other, relatively soon.
      
      I've mentioned in a previous comment that a close friend of mine works in an immunology lab at a major Australian university.
      
      This is basically what he told me - that fast-tracking has to do with logistics, not with lowering scientific evidence requirements. Most of the fast-tracking means that more funding is injected so that more scientists can come and work on the problem, more research assistants can be brought onboard, the distribution channels can be strengthened, production capacity increased, making sure we have enough glass vials and syringes, and refrigerated storage…etc.
      
      The problem is that the way scientists communicate and regular people communicate can be quite different. Since scientists (and other academics) write in academic journals where there is a high amount of scrutiny and accountability, they tend to hedge what they say even if they are confident, e.g. "there could be a possibility of a vaccine by Christmas" really means "we're pretty sure we'll have a vaccine by Christmas"…etc.
      - ozhunter on 30/11/2020 - 00:04
        
        @p1 ama: All those extra years it typically takes is just logistical problems? Do they even deliver any of it?
        How would manage to see any long-term side affects in a much shorter amount of time?
        
        whooah1979 on 30/11/2020 - 05:18
        
        +1
        
        @ozhunter: That is what happens when they use Auspost instead of couriers.
achew on 29/11/2020 - 12:35

+3

Beef industry typically requires employees to have a Q-Fever vax. Don't think you'd want to get that buddy.

Get the jab, get the job.
serpentxx on 29/11/2020 - 15:17

I dont really want to take the vaccine for the first month or so after public release, would like to see if theres any side effects after the masses take it, then im fine with going for it.

However I feel my company will make it a requirement as im a essential worker, and I like my job and money so will probably take it.
WK1991 on 29/11/2020 - 17:24

+1

I've already had vaccinations as part of the requirement for certain jobs I've done in the past. This would be no different.
drfuzzy on 29/11/2020 - 22:36

It's not a jab, it's a vaccine.
Serious topic; the unnecessary slang undermines it.
Ughhh on 30/11/2020 - 12:25

I can not believe some are comparing a contagious virus to abortions, like seriously. I can't even.
- ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 17:57
  
  Ugh, it's being used in an analogy.
  - Ughhh on 01/12/2020 - 18:32
    
    It's not even oranges and mandarins.
BobLim on 30/11/2020 - 20:54

+2

If it was a choice between getting fired or taking the vaccine I'd probably choose the latter, but I very much doubt that would be enforceable.

I've never worked a job where vaccinations have been required, and I'm not keen to jump to the front of the line for this particular one either. For at least the first few years of the vaccine implementation, it should be my choice if I get it or not based on my own reasonable assessment of the risks and benefits, without arbitrary unrelated restrictions on my life one way or the other. I have no interest in working closely with "at-risk" groups if it would compromise this principle.

I also intentionally don't work in a field where I'd usually have to wear a mask because I find it incredibly uncomfortable and it aggravates skin conditions, but at least the mandatory mask is temporary, removable, well-proven and external. I don't care what personal health requirements a surgeon or aged care worker might have to comply with - it's not relevant to me as I don't perform those roles or interact with those settings in any way.
- ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 17:55
  
  Agreed. Equating being required to have a vaccination for work as the same as restricting services to someone is just nonsense. Do doctors treat patients who haven't had vaccinations?
  - brendanq on 05/12/2020 - 11:34
    
    I've had to travel for work and it was compulsory to get vaccines, which I'm fine with.
brendanq on 05/12/2020 - 11:33

100% would take it, for business, personal and otherwise. It's basic public health science.
whooah1979 on 05/12/2020 - 11:48

I would take if all airlines make it mandatory, but only after waiting a few years to see how it affects lighthouse customers.
EightImmortals on 14/12/2020 - 10:16

heh, just for reference…

https://www.worldvaccinepoll.com/

( https://i.imgur.com/IHsUCST.jpg )

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

Poll Options expired

Comments

New Forum Topics