Vince Green Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 COVID-19: More than 150 Houston hospital workers lose their jobs after refusing to get vaccine in Houston | US News | Sky News good for them I say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 37 minutes ago, Vince Green said: COVID-19: More than 150 Houston hospital workers lose their jobs after refusing to get vaccine in Houston | US News | Sky News good for them I say yup i agree. if you're employing someone to take care of patients, you should be able to expect them to protect them when they're at their most vulnerable. It's nice the judge was so unequivocal in throwing out the case, calling it 'reprehensible'. i can't see a federal or even supreme court doing anything different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 37 minutes ago, Vince Green said: good for them I say Oh dear, this will do nothing other than make lawyers richer...forced medical procedures will be deemed to be unconstitutional, ultimately (my prediction). Next stop Federal court which apparently could set a precedent. 3 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: it's nice the judge was so unequivocal in throwing out the case, calling it 'reprehensible'. And the judge was referring to the comparison to Nazi medical experiments as reprehensible, not the case itself Remember the State of Texas has no restrictions or mask laws. It is a very different environment to us poor saps on this miserable island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: Oh dear, this will do nothing other than make lawyers richer...forced medical procedures will be deemed to be unconstitutional, ultimately (my prediction). Next stop Federal court which apparently could set a precedent. And the judge was referring to the comparison to Nazi medical experiments as reprehensible, not the case itself Remember the State of Texas has no restrictions or mask laws. It is a very different environment to us poor saps on this miserable island. i don't think it will be, because it is not a forced medical procedure, it's a job requirement. They're not being forced to have the jab, they're being told they're allowed to not have it, but can't work at this hospital. The Constitution would only be tested if the government mandated that having the jab was a legal requirement, regardless of personal beliefs. This is just one company/organisation putting a requirement to work in place based on medical science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 IANAL, as they say. 6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: because it is not a forced medical procedure, it's a job requirement You have to undergo a medical procedure to keep your job; there's a distinction between that and it being written into your contract from the start. Passing a medical as a condition of employment is pretty routine in the US, but I don't see how they can turn around that employees suddenly submit to this and then fire them if they don't. I'm no expert on Texas employment law, and I suspect you aren't either, but I can't see the merits of the case in law (which is what is being judged here, not emotions, feelings, 'common sense, or even 'medical science') not coming down in favo(u)r of the plaintiffs. 11 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: The Constitution would only be tested if the government mandated that having the jab was a legal requirement, regardless of personal beliefs. Rubbish - There are plenty of cases of private companies being taken to task for violating constitutional rights (usually first amendment related). Whether you think vaccinations as a condition of employment is unconstitutional or not, is a different question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 (edited) Exactly the same as a clean driving licence requirement or a CRB check. If you don't like it dont apply anway employment contracts virtually always say the employer has the right to change what ever they like Edited June 23, 2021 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 35 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: if you're employing someone to take care of patients, you should be able to expect them to protect them when they're at their most vulnerable. Err , are we not told that you can still pass on the virus even if youve been doubled jabbed ? You can effectively be a carrier, so that argument doesnt really hold water. 16 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: They're not being forced to have the jab, they're being told they're allowed to not have it, but can't work at this hospital. So their employer has changed the contract without giving them the chance of paid redundancy ? Forcing new work conditions upon a work force , mid contract is unethical and probably illegal in that state, and almost certainly unconstitutional. How would you like it if your employer told you you had to work an extra 20 hours a week for no extra pay , or you would be sacked ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 Gordon Bennett! Surely it makes sense to have the vaccinations in order to work in health care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Exactly the same as a clean driving licence requirement or a CRB check. If you don't like it dont apply They arent applying , they are existing employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Vince Green said: Exactly the same as a clean driving licence requirement or a CRB check. If you don't like it dont apply There are so many problems with that analogy I don't even know where to be begin. Once more, it is a retrospective requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Gordon Bennett! Surely it makes sense to have the vaccinations in order to work in health care? Do hospital workers have the flu jab in British hospitals as a matter of procedure ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said: There are so many problems with that analogy I don't even know where to be begin. Once more, it is a retrospective requirement. Employers contracts always say they can change the terms of your employment if they want to, and you sign it when you join Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Do hospital workers have the flu jab in British hospitals as a matter of procedure ? I honestly don't know, but the flue is much less of a problem than Covid 19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: IANAL, as they say. You have to undergo a medical procedure to keep your job; there's a distinction between that and it being written into your contract from the start. Passing a medical as a condition of employment is pretty routine in the US, but I don't see how they can turn around that employees suddenly submit to this and then fire them if they don't. I'm no expert on Texas employment law, and I suspect you aren't either, but I can't see the merits of the case in law (which is what is being judged here, not emotions, feelings, 'common sense, or even 'medical science') not coming down in favo(u)r of the plaintiffs. Rubbish - There are plenty of cases of private companies being taken to task for violating constitutional rights (usually first amendment related). Whether you think vaccinations as a condition of employment is unconstitutional or not, is a different question. But how many successful cases have there been that have then resulted in innocent parties' health being put at risk as a direct consequence? 4 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Err , are we not told that you can still pass on the virus even if youve been doubled jabbed ? You can effectively be a carrier, so that argument doesnt really hold water. So their employer has changed the contract without giving them the chance of paid redundancy ? Forcing new work conditions upon a work force , mid contract is unethical and probably illegal in that state, and almost certainly unconstitutional. How would you like it if your employer told you you had to work an extra 20 hours a week for no extra pay , or you would be sacked ? You can be a carrier when double vaccinated, but you're nowhere near as effective a carrier. I agree, breach of contract would be a much more robust challenge. And it'd be a brave hospital that tore up all its staff contracts and then tried to rehire them all on the same contract, plus the vaccine clause, which I'd guess they'd have to do? But I don't think they've got a case on personal liberties/freedom of expression. people on FB are trying to make it an assault on their human rights, but that doesn't hold water either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: You can be a carrier when double vaccinated, but you're nowhere near as effective a carrier. Im sorry , but until theres a study (and that may take some time ) on different variants ect, 'nowhere near' isnt an adequate description. 11 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: people on FB are trying to make it an assault on their human rights, but that doesn't hold water either I disagree, its making the vaccine kind of compulsory isnt it ? Dont get vaxxed , you lose your job, where does that end ? 20 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Employers contracts always say they can change the terms of your employment if they want to, and you sign it when you join They can , but they cant sack you if you dont want to agree to them, they can offer you redundancy or an alternative. 28 minutes ago, Rewulf said: How would you like it if your employer told you you had to work an extra 20 hours a week for no extra pay , or you would be sacked ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/jun/22/get-vaccinated-or-i-will-have-you-jailed-duterte-video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 31 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: But I don't think they've got a case on personal liberties I think they have. But again, neither you nor I are Texas employment law specialists, so we shall see. If I were a betting man, however... 40 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Employers contracts always say they can change the terms of your employment if they want to, and you sign it when you join Correct but you forgot the corollary to that, which is if these subsequent amendments are deemed unreasonable, illegal, or even just that the employees were strong-armed in to accepting them at risk of losing their jobs, they will find themselves before a court or tribunal. You mustn't let your enthusiasm or otherwise for vaccination distract you from the fact this case will be decided based on its merits under the applicable state laws and the constitution, not feelings or medical science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Im sorry , but until theres a study (and that may take some time ) on different variants ect, 'nowhere near' isnt an adequate description. I disagree, its making the vaccine kind of compulsory isnt it ?Dont get vaxxed , you lose your job, where does that end ? But the other way to look at it is 'don't do your job, lose your job'. Simplified massively, but hospitals should be able to require their employees to do what they can to protect their patients. My guess is any legal case brought against a hospital would be framed like that. The hippocratic oath might be outdated for many as a legally binding requirement, but its implications and influence are still well entrenched. Actively choosing to put them at risk is dangerous for the patient and brings the hospital into disrepute. When the message of the hospital is that vaccines are a critical weapon against Covid it makes them look untrustworthy to say 'vaccines are critical, but it's fine for people not to bother even if they're looking after very sick and very vulnerable people'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: Actively choosing to put them at risk is dangerous for the patient and brings the hospital into disrepute. So by putting the patient into an environment where there are hundreds , maybe thousands of infectious people.... Youll be telling me next youve never heard of anyone going into hospital for very routine surgery, and getting a MRSA type bug ? Like I say , the argument doesnt hold water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 Just now, Rewulf said: So by putting the patient into an environment where there are hundreds , maybe thousands of infectious people.... Youll be telling me next youve never heard of anyone going into hospital for very routine surgery, and getting a MRSA type bug ? Like I say , the argument doesnt hold water. Needs must. It's not ideal, but it's impossible to run any hospital where each patient has its own independent care team. What you don't do is actively make it worse by refusing to do things that are within your control. You wash your hands, you clean medical equipment, you get yourself vaccinated, you change contaminated clothing...You do what you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 Just now, chrisjpainter said: You wash your hands, you clean medical equipment, you get yourself vaccinated, you change contaminated clothing...You do what you can. Along with PROPERLY cleaning working areas ,they can start with the highlighted, as I said previously , they dont compulsory vaccinate for flu, yet thousands die from it every year , a lot of it picked up from hospitals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 19 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: But the other way to look at it is 'don't do your job, lose your job'. Simplified massively, but hospitals should be able to require their employees to do what they can to protect their patients. My guess is any legal case brought against a hospital would be framed like that. Indeed, and there are strict protocols to follow in a clinical setting, including wearing masks amongst other PPE. Why if they were accepting of the risk prior to a vaccine existing would we not accept it now? And whither those who cannot be vaccinated, both patients and staff? Would you sack the latter, too? This debate is very literally moot, as it will ultimately depend on whether what the hospital is doing contravenes state employment law. - I suspect it does, you seemingly think it doesn't. We shall see. 1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: I honestly don't know, but the flue is much less of a problem than Covid 19. As long as you have it swept at least once a year you shouldn't encounter no problems. Influenza on the other hand is a massive killer, has a vaccine programme, and annual government drive to get vaccinated...yes suddenly last year we had no deaths from flu. Whether this was because of the cluster that is cause of death reporting in this country, social distancing, or the fact that anyone with flu was likely also to test positive for Covid we don't yet know. But to say it is 'much less of a problem ' is incorrect, because we just don't know by how much. But we know that we don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 Here's the thing though, if the vaccine is definitely safe, why has the UK government (and probably others) taken the ability to claim damages away from anyone injured or killed by it, money is key in the west and talk is cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: Here's the thing though, if the vaccine is definitely safe, . No such thing exists. All endeavours bring with them risk 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: Why has the UK government (and probably others) taken the ability to claim damages away from anyone injured or killed by it, I suspect the commercial negotiations were along the lines of "We want this first, at 'cost' price" "Ok, will you indemnify us" "sure..." No smoking gun, just something they asked for and got. Occam's razor and all that. 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: money is key in the west and talk is cheap. Yep it's called capitalism. Bit like democracy, lousy system, but the least lousiest we've got. I'd like to see government-run pharma R&D teams develop, trial and roll-out a vaccine in this time....Soviet tractor factories spring to mind Edited June 23, 2021 by udderlyoffroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 am i right in thinking that surgeons and dentists all have to have valid hepititas jabs to date to be able to practice....................if that is the case then whats the problem ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted June 23, 2021 Report Share Posted June 23, 2021 17 minutes ago, ditchman said: am i right in thinking that surgeons and dentists all have to have valid hepititas jabs to date to be able to practice....................if that is the case then whats the problem ? Don't go bringing common sense to the debate. It could be to stop staff needing to shield in the case of another big outbreak or to try and keep other departments running?? There was something on the radio about care home staff having to be vaccinated in England, but I haven't heard anything about it since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.