Forced Covid vaccinations
- Thread starter deej92
- Start date
mandryka
pfm Member
Trade-union-membership-2019-statistical-bulletin.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Look above -- 50% of Education workers are unionised == do teachers' unions influence government? I can't myself see that unionisation amongst people providing personal care in homes has anything to do with the government's choice to focus attention on this sector rather than, for example, people providing patient care in the public sector.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
This story is from back in March but nonetheless suggests a very high rate of vaccination amongst NHS staff - high 90s (outside of London at least!)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56291564
I know a few medics, they were fully vaccinated at the first opportunity & were strongly encouraged to do so. Wasn’t sure how typical that situation was.
I don’t really see why care staff should be a special case. Sorry for being so uncaring & judgemental.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
If you have a workforce that doesn't have widespread membership of a union, a cheaper 'stick' (compulsion) can be applied easily and avoids an expensive carrot like a "pandemic gratitude bonus" and you won't get bogged down in union-supported unfair dismissal cases for every worker who is sacked (as opposed to being made redundant) because they've had their Ts&Cs unilaterally changed and their employer couldn't find them suitable employment elsewhere in their care business
Seanm
pfm Member
I’m sure the main motivation for the government is to create an aura of culpability around care workers to shift blame for the care home cull. It’s just that they might be a bit less brazen about this if care workers were less vulnerable, had more of a voice, and more social esteem - all things that unionisation can help with. People on here talking about care workers like they’re scum, basically. I don’t think they’d do that with nurses. The Tories know how to pick their targets, they’re not new to this.
Trade-union-membership-2019-statistical-bulletin.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Look above -- 50% of Education workers are unionised == do teachers' unions influence government? I can't myself see that unionisation amongst people providing personal care in homes has anything to do with the government's choice to focus attention on this sector rather than, for example, people providing patient care in the public sector.
Tony L
Administrator
I’m struggling to see how trade unions defending anti-vaccer’s employment rights helps carehome residents stay safe, carehome businesses stay viable etc. That’s assuming any union would be sufficiently insane to fight that particular battle of course.
I suspect Sean is largely correct about the motivation (deflecting blame from Tory criminal negligence), but it still doesn’t make defending the indefensible an especially good counter-argument. As stated upthread if I owned a carehome I’d sack any anti-vaccers on the spot. I’d far prefer to face a (likely non-existent) employment tribunal than see residents at increased risk or worse dying in droves, law-suits from breathed families, the business stigmatised as unsafe, staffed by nutters etc. The patients/residents safety has to be priority #1. No one has the right to be irresponsible in a place of work.
I suspect Sean is largely correct about the motivation (deflecting blame from Tory criminal negligence), but it still doesn’t make defending the indefensible an especially good counter-argument. As stated upthread if I owned a carehome I’d sack any anti-vaccers on the spot. I’d far prefer to face a (likely non-existent) employment tribunal than see residents at increased risk or worse dying in droves, law-suits from breathed families, the business stigmatised as unsafe, staffed by nutters etc. The patients/residents safety has to be priority #1. No one has the right to be irresponsible in a place of work.
Seanm
pfm Member
The thing is you’re assuming they’re anti-vaxxers: it’s not fair and it’s not correct- I mean it’s way out. But that speaks to the question of social status I mentioned above: no one would make such an insulting and ignorant assumption about nurses, much less surgeons etc.
Richard Lines
pfm Member
and there's the rub as someone once said (or pretty close anyway). It puts employers of, I imagine, many businesses in a difficult position in that an employee, or relatives thereof, pursuing said employer for not providing a safe place of work in the event of a COVID-19 death or long term health related issue???
I've done my societal bit in that I've complied with the government requirements since the outset and had my vaccinations. I continue to exercise 'reasonable' care as does my other half.
Can't wait to see how things will be down at the GYS next month now the organisers have confirmed it is going ahead.
Regards
Richard
paulfromcamden
Baffled
This is from the GMB's page on vaccination.
GMB believes that vaccination is necessary to reduce the immediate risk to the most vulnerable in society and our key workers; to mitigate the long-term health conditions that the virus causes for some people; and to secure members’ jobs by allowing the economy to re-open for business in a safe way
We encourage members to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is made available to them.
We recognise that some GMB members may have medical concerns or equality based issues in receiving the vaccine. Where this is the case, they should seek GMB assistance in setting out their concerns to their employer.
Where members do not have medical conditions or equality concerns but choose not to have the vaccine (as with other vaccines, the COVID19 vaccine has not been made mandatory by the government), we will represent members should workplace issues arise, subject to rule.
However we urge any member considering adopting this position to be aware of the potential employment ramifications of doing so.
Vaccination refusal may result in disciplinary actions from employers, including potential dismissal, even with GMB representation. As of January 2021 some employers have already adopted such positions. For members working for such employers, this may lead to unemployment at a time of unprecedented job losses. It can take up to a year to take a claim to tribunal and - assuming there is no argument based on a protected characteristic - the maximum that can be awarded by a tribunal is one year’s loss of earnings (and then only in the event that no alternative employment has been found).
As such, GMB urges all members to carefully consider all of the facts and the implications of refusal before deciding whether or not to be vaccinated.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/coronavirus/vaccination
Rachel Harrison states:
Ministers are ploughing ahead with plans to strongarm care workers into taking the vaccine without taking seriously the massive blocks these workers still face in getting jabbed.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/ill-tho...ate-vaccinations-could-lead-care-staff-exodus
It's obvious the natural order of things that a union would be opposed to pretty much anything a Tory government does. But it would have been really helpful if Rachel Harrison had explained exactly what the 'massive blocks' to getting jabbed were (I appreciate Sean has raised the issue of time off work if people become ill).
GMB believes that vaccination is necessary to reduce the immediate risk to the most vulnerable in society and our key workers; to mitigate the long-term health conditions that the virus causes for some people; and to secure members’ jobs by allowing the economy to re-open for business in a safe way
We encourage members to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is made available to them.
We recognise that some GMB members may have medical concerns or equality based issues in receiving the vaccine. Where this is the case, they should seek GMB assistance in setting out their concerns to their employer.
Where members do not have medical conditions or equality concerns but choose not to have the vaccine (as with other vaccines, the COVID19 vaccine has not been made mandatory by the government), we will represent members should workplace issues arise, subject to rule.
However we urge any member considering adopting this position to be aware of the potential employment ramifications of doing so.
Vaccination refusal may result in disciplinary actions from employers, including potential dismissal, even with GMB representation. As of January 2021 some employers have already adopted such positions. For members working for such employers, this may lead to unemployment at a time of unprecedented job losses. It can take up to a year to take a claim to tribunal and - assuming there is no argument based on a protected characteristic - the maximum that can be awarded by a tribunal is one year’s loss of earnings (and then only in the event that no alternative employment has been found).
As such, GMB urges all members to carefully consider all of the facts and the implications of refusal before deciding whether or not to be vaccinated.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/coronavirus/vaccination
Rachel Harrison states:
Ministers are ploughing ahead with plans to strongarm care workers into taking the vaccine without taking seriously the massive blocks these workers still face in getting jabbed.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/ill-tho...ate-vaccinations-could-lead-care-staff-exodus
It's obvious the natural order of things that a union would be opposed to pretty much anything a Tory government does. But it would have been really helpful if Rachel Harrison had explained exactly what the 'massive blocks' to getting jabbed were (I appreciate Sean has raised the issue of time off work if people become ill).
Tony L
Administrator
Whatever the reason no one should be allowed to increase risk in these environments. If there is a legitimate reason they can’t take the vaccination then maybe consider furlough or whatever. The patients/residents care and safety is the core product here. It is simply insane to allow any employee to jeopardise that. People are quite literally dying when mistakes are made. If it is your responsibility, e.g. you own, or even just manage the place, then you own every decision. Every death is on your head.
If you owned a carehome for say adult Down Syndrome residents how exactly would you deal with it? For me it is clear. I’d ring-fence those residents and evaluate and reduce every risk factor as far as I possibly could. That obviously involves vetting staff.
hifinutt
hifinutt
over past few months I have heard my son's experiences trying to get staff to work in care homes through an agency . It's been hell trying to persuade staff to travel many miles to cover shortages , trying to persuade them to take the risk of catching covid in an affected home . Having to negotiate higher pay rates to compensate them . Certainly is not easy to get staff to do these difficult jobs
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
I'd like to be in the position to make a choice. If I am forced, as the owner, to issue the ultimatum of "get vaccinated or get sacked", then I could end up being in the s**t when a load of staff either leave or get sacked and can't be replaced (the adult care sector runs at about 100k vacancies constantly - https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Ab...needs-to-fill-more-than-100000-vacancies.aspx). What's better, skeleton staff levels or full staff using PPE and good hygiene protocols?
mansr
Objectionist
WTF are "equality based issues"?
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
"Equality Impact Assessment Title: Making vaccination a condition of deployment in care homes for working age adults"
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ic_sector_equality_duty_impact_assessment.pdf
Pages 7-8
"21% of care home residents with care commissioned by the LA are working age adults with a disability"
"it is possible that staff with disabilities may still have found it difficult to access their vaccination."
"This policy would not advance equality between staff who have a disability and those who do not. It could work against workforce cohesion and good relations between staff, with negative impacts on the wellbeing of disabled staff if tensions arise between vaccineexempt staff and those who are not exempt. Conversely the policy could force staff to disclose their disabilities to management, with the risk of less favourable treatment by their employer or colleagues."
Pages 8-9
"The adult social care workforce in 2019/20 comprised 82% female and 18% male workers.9 As a result, more women will be impacted than men by a policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination in care homes. There is also some evidence that women have higher rates of vaccine hesitancy than men, and they may also face more barriers to accessing the vaccine"
"The impact of a vaccine as a condition of deploying staff to work in a care home could lead to women being disproportionately at risk of facing enforcement action at work and potentially losing their jobs."
Pages 10-11
"We have identified that this policy is likely to have a significant impact on ethnic minorities"
"However, there is a risk that issues such as lack of trust could be exacerbated by this policy. "
And so on.
Nothing there that cannot be addressed by mitigative action but that needs investment of resources (including time) if it is to be treated sensitively and not cause huge problems with a stretched workforce. However, there is a risk that this policy is seen as a cheap fix and will ne put in place in a tear-ar*e hurry.