QF mandates Vaccine
You guys are amazing. You know someone’s agenda from a copy and pace type face.
Here’s the link
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...262v1.full.pdf
Here’s the link
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...262v1.full.pdf
You guys are amazing. You know someone’s agenda from a copy and pace type face.
Here’s the link
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...262v1.full.pdf
Here’s the link
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...262v1.full.pdf
Do you support this as well?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been almost two years now and no government that I am aware of in the world has yet mandated compulsory Covid-19 vaccinations. Instead, they have imposed restrictions on the movements of those unqualified as fully vaccinated, and supported corporations who did much the same by way of the instrument of condition of continued employment. Such is the careful strategic tip-toeing around the responsibility for any adverse reaction caused by the vaccine by both government and corporations that effectively they remain not liable in any way, shape or form for any adverse health reaction to a Covid-19 vaccination. The responsibility for taking the Covid-19 vaccine is entirely yours and yours alone leaving you with no course of action for seeking compensation should things ever turn out for the worse in either the short or long term.
Fortunately, the data is showing so far that Covid-19 vaccinations are safe, yet surprisingly the government is still not mandating them. Like the virus itself, corporations are quickly discovering they now have a new stick they can use with making vaccination a condition of continued employment, and the new stick has far reaching benefits that can go beyond than just dealing with Covid-19 issues.
Which leads me to the next phase of this journey after the empowerment of corporations with a responsibility that should have been the sole role of the government.
Fortunately, the data is showing so far that Covid-19 vaccinations are safe, yet surprisingly the government is still not mandating them. Like the virus itself, corporations are quickly discovering they now have a new stick they can use with making vaccination a condition of continued employment, and the new stick has far reaching benefits that can go beyond than just dealing with Covid-19 issues.
Which leads me to the next phase of this journey after the empowerment of corporations with a responsibility that should have been the sole role of the government.
Also more than half of US government employees are required to be vaccinated as well as all active duty serving armed forces members. Which affects about 100 million or 4 times the total Australian population.
So yes a lil googling you will find Australia is not some sort of lone ranger of vaccination mandates. To add to that Singapore is about to go full mandate and require you to be vaccinated to receive free healthcare.
So yes a lil googling you will find Australia is not some sort of lone ranger of vaccination mandates. To add to that Singapore is about to go full mandate and require you to be vaccinated to receive free healthcare.
They're not really mandates. They are statements that you get vaccinated, or face the withdrawal of certain social conventions. You can still choose not to get vaxxed. They are not going to break down your door, strap you to a gurney and stick a needle in your arm against your will. You'll soon have more rights and benefits as a convicted murderer who has actually killed someone, than a law abiding unvaxxed (for whatever reason) citizen who possibly might.
So, if you willingly walk around unvaxxed and happen to pass on a serious disease knowing you had less protection and more transmissability than the others, and you inadvertently killed someone by infecting them. Could that not be considered manslaughter? I know if you willingly pass a disease to someone and they die, it definitely can be counted as murder, as has been proven in AIDS cases where the user knew they had the virus and passed it on. It gets into murky ground if you willingly don't protect yourself and in doing so endanger others, food for thought. If an unvaxxed kid with whooping cough passed it onto my kids and they died or became disabled I would be dragging the parents through the courts.
If its government issued as in the USA, its a mandate. Mandate can be a requirement to comply or bugger off, which is what the vaccine requirements are. Victoria also has vaccination mandates in effect for affected workplaces.
They're not really mandates.
Also more than half of US government employees are required to be vaccinated as well as all active duty serving armed forces members. Which affects about 100 million or 4 times the total Australian population.
So yes a lil googling you will find Australia is not some sort of lone ranger of vaccination mandates. To add to that Singapore is about to go full mandate and require you to be vaccinated to receive free healthcare.
So yes a lil googling you will find Australia is not some sort of lone ranger of vaccination mandates. To add to that Singapore is about to go full mandate and require you to be vaccinated to receive free healthcare.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/13/fede...verbroad-.html
Its only a pause on the mandate for private business, the mandate for government employees and the military is in full swing.
PS, TBH the OHSA rules are probably an over-reach as it just purely targets all businesses with staff over 100, so courts were always going to take issue as there is no adjustment for how vulnerable the workplace and workers are to the disease. I see it being amended to reflect risk management, which is what Victoria has mandated, a risk based approach.
PS, TBH the OHSA rules are probably an over-reach as it just purely targets all businesses with staff over 100, so courts were always going to take issue as there is no adjustment for how vulnerable the workplace and workers are to the disease. I see it being amended to reflect risk management, which is what Victoria has mandated, a risk based approach.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, bush lawyers, what do you call it when a company mandates a vaccine?
Not a mandate? Perhaps just a “requirement for continued employment?”
Is that a euphemism for “failure to get vaccinated will result in summary dismissal”?
Or “due to the fact that you can no longer meet our WHS obligations, we are no longer able to employ you.”
Or ‘due to our policy of mandatory vaccinations, we are no longer interested in employing you - and our policy rates higher than your common-law rights due to legal precedent”.
It’s an interesting legal question. BHP have stood down 200 unvaccinated workers but not sacked them yet due pending legal action.
It’s an area of law ripe for precedent, there isn’t much yet. Yes, there was an aged-care worker in NSW who refused a flu-vax, and lost her case, but only 2 out of the 3-bench judges agreed on that during the final appeal.
P.S. It didn’t help the dissenting judge when he added all sorts of anti-vax froot-loop opinions to his final published reasons that should probably have been kept to himself.
Not a mandate? Perhaps just a “requirement for continued employment?”
Is that a euphemism for “failure to get vaccinated will result in summary dismissal”?
Or “due to the fact that you can no longer meet our WHS obligations, we are no longer able to employ you.”
Or ‘due to our policy of mandatory vaccinations, we are no longer interested in employing you - and our policy rates higher than your common-law rights due to legal precedent”.
It’s an interesting legal question. BHP have stood down 200 unvaccinated workers but not sacked them yet due pending legal action.
It’s an area of law ripe for precedent, there isn’t much yet. Yes, there was an aged-care worker in NSW who refused a flu-vax, and lost her case, but only 2 out of the 3-bench judges agreed on that during the final appeal.
P.S. It didn’t help the dissenting judge when he added all sorts of anti-vax froot-loop opinions to his final published reasons that should probably have been kept to himself.
Last edited by Derfred; 16th Nov 2021 at 09:34.
OK, bush lawyers, what do you call it when a company mandates a vaccine?
Not a mandate? Perhaps just a “requirement for continued employment?”
Is that a euphemism for “failure to get vaccinated will result in summary dismissal”?
Or “due to the fact that you can no longer meet our WHS obligations, we are no longer able to employ you.”
Or ‘due to our policy of mandatory vaccinations, we are no longer interested in employing you - and our policy rates higher than your common-law rights due to legal precedent”.
It’s an interesting legal question. BHP have stood down 200 unvaccinated workers but not sacked them yet due pending legal action.
It’s an area of law ripe for precedent, there isn’t much yet. Yes, there was an aged-care worker in NSW who refused a flu-vax, and lost her case, but only 2 out of the 3-bench judges agreed on that during the final appeal.
P.S. It didn’t help the dissenting judge when he added all sorts of anti-vax froot-loop opinions to his final published reasons that should probably have been kept to himself.
Not a mandate? Perhaps just a “requirement for continued employment?”
Is that a euphemism for “failure to get vaccinated will result in summary dismissal”?
Or “due to the fact that you can no longer meet our WHS obligations, we are no longer able to employ you.”
Or ‘due to our policy of mandatory vaccinations, we are no longer interested in employing you - and our policy rates higher than your common-law rights due to legal precedent”.
It’s an interesting legal question. BHP have stood down 200 unvaccinated workers but not sacked them yet due pending legal action.
It’s an area of law ripe for precedent, there isn’t much yet. Yes, there was an aged-care worker in NSW who refused a flu-vax, and lost her case, but only 2 out of the 3-bench judges agreed on that during the final appeal.
P.S. It didn’t help the dissenting judge when he added all sorts of anti-vax froot-loop opinions to his final published reasons that should probably have been kept to himself.
What should be asked is, is there a moral obligation to your community and country for the benefit of all. Why is it that those that argue that their individual rights have somehow been usurped, fail to mention the greater benefit to society if vaccination reaches that critical ratio.
The same people whom refuse to comply with well accepted science and policies of vaccination, cherry picking spurious facts to support their bias, never ever refute the possibility that their deniability may well end with them in hospital on a ventilator or even more damning, someone that they’ve passed the virus on to becoming very ill. 90% of those now in hospital with COVID are not vaccinated. That’s a fact. It’s ironic that these same people have unwillingly passed it on to others unvaccinated, perpetuating the transfer and hospitalisation. Very few vaccinated people end up in hospital. The viral load from a fully vaccinated and infected person is substantially less. Fact.
For the people refuting science, standing on their soap box singing the tune of individual rights over the greater good to society, great work cause all you’ve really achieved is infecting more like minded people and the continued infection of those deniers and unfortunately the vulnerable, aged or weak. If you’re religious even more shame. Hypocrisy rules supreme.
I know of people, unvaccinated, and have now decided to no longer to engage with them. It’s no longer worth the risk of unknowingly passing on the virus whilst having any symptoms myself. I’ve told them of my reasoning but they don’t understand. Ostriches living in Stockholm.
Last edited by Troo believer; 16th Nov 2021 at 10:52.
Subsequent to the Kimber V Sapphire ruling Ms Dean has disqualified herself from adjudicating on any disputes relating to workplace vaccinations on the grounds of manifest bias. According to President of the FWC, Justice Iain Ross, Ms Dean is also undertaking training on the responsibilities and standards of professional conduct expected of a member of the commission.
Most businesses will take the prudently cautious course of standing down workers who won't comply with vaccination requirements and then issuing them with show cause notices. That affords the workers all reasonable due process if their subsequent dismissal is challenged as unfair.
Last edited by MickG0105; 16th Nov 2021 at 12:31. Reason: Added comment to save second post
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Troo: I agree with your philosophy, but you haven’t even approached my questions.
This thread, to be true to it’s instigation, is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination. Not to discuss the general health benefit of vaccinations or the flow-on benefit to society. There are other threads for that.
This thread is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination for it’s employees.
My question was regarding a consideration of the legal basis for it. Please read carefully.
Edit: Mick (you and I posted the same time) - not suprised. My apologies for the gender bias. Thanks for the update. Interesting that the froot-loop was suspended, I guess some part of the the system actually works.
This thread, to be true to it’s instigation, is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination. Not to discuss the general health benefit of vaccinations or the flow-on benefit to society. There are other threads for that.
This thread is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination for it’s employees.
My question was regarding a consideration of the legal basis for it. Please read carefully.
Edit: Mick (you and I posted the same time) - not suprised. My apologies for the gender bias. Thanks for the update. Interesting that the froot-loop was suspended, I guess some part of the the system actually works.
Last edited by Derfred; 16th Nov 2021 at 12:46.
Why is it that those that argue that their individual rights have somehow been usurped, fail to mention the greater benefit to society if vaccination reaches that critical ratio.
Troo: I agree with your philosophy, but you haven’t even approached my questions.
This thread, to be true to it’s instigation, is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination. Not to discuss the general health benefit of vaccinations or the flow-on benefit to society. There are other threads for that.
This thread is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination for it’s employees.
My question was regarding a consideration of the legal basis for it. Please read carefully.
Edit: Mick (you and I posted the same time) - not suprised. My apologies for the gender bias. Thanks for the update. Interesting that the froot-loop was suspended, I guess some part of the the system actually works.
This thread, to be true to it’s instigation, is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination. Not to discuss the general health benefit of vaccinations or the flow-on benefit to society. There are other threads for that.
This thread is to discuss the concept of Qantas mandating vaccination for it’s employees.
My question was regarding a consideration of the legal basis for it. Please read carefully.
Edit: Mick (you and I posted the same time) - not suprised. My apologies for the gender bias. Thanks for the update. Interesting that the froot-loop was suspended, I guess some part of the the system actually works.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you’ve missed the point. Stop muddying the waters and understand that if you are employed by Qantas to fly their aircraft, it’s not your role to question whether or not they have the legal right to mandate a policy that at the end of the day is beneficial to all passengers and crew. I’m a pilot not a lawyer and I’m very relaxed with the vaccination policy like the vast majority are. It’s very cut and dried. Get vaccinated or go else where. I don’t want to be over Mongolia approaching Siberia at 3 in the morning with a passenger that can’t breathe properly on oxygen with COVID , talking to some poor Dr. on board using a satcom patch to Medlink and IOC trying to work out where we should divert to. The operational and financial risks are just too high and unnecessary if a vaccine is available. It’s that simple. It’s not some intellectual exercise so stop trying to make it so.
Qantas don’t have a vaccination mandate for passengers, they have one for staff. Please try to keep up.
Unless you are somehow under the impression that an unvaccinated crew member will pass COVID-19 onto a passenger who will in turn develop symptoms suddenly requiring a ventilator over Mongolia - if so, I don’t think you understand how this disease works.
Passengers will very likely require a vaccine to cross certain state or international borders, but that does’t have anything to do with Qantas.
The Qantas staff vaccine mandate is the entire topic of this thread, so no, I haven’t missed the point. Who the hell are you to tell me that it’s not my role to question the legality of that mandate. Are you still in Siberia?
I, too, will feel a little more comfortable as of yesterday knowing that the pilots I share a cockpit with are vaccinated, but that doesn’t mean I agree that Alan has a right to mandate it to be so.
This country is supposed to be ruled by law, not CEO’S. Has our Government mandated vaccines for the airline industry? No. Why not?
If the Governments of any of my destinations require a vaccine, then it becomes an inherent requirement of my job that I have one, but that has always been the case and is a completely different argument.