Hospital in Texas sacks staff who wouldn't take the jab

[udderlyoffroad]

3 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 ?

1) That's the UK, not the state of Texas

2) That has been assessed as mainly necessary to protect the surgeon, not the patient.

3) How do you feel about, say,  an HIV Positive Surgeon operating on you?  In all likelihood, you are for more risk to him than he is to you, provided proper procedure is followed so he doesn't cut himself whilst messing with your innards...

 

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Don't go bringing common sense to the debate.

Ahh that perfect commodity.  Everybody thinks they have enough, yet somehow there isn't enough of it in the world....

3 minutes ago, Mice! said:

It could be to stop staff needing to shield in the case of another big outbreak or to try and keep other departments running??

Sidebar...how about the general population not needing to shield if we're jabbed?  Let's start with that!

4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

here was something on the radio about care home staff having to be vaccinated in England,  but I haven't heard anything about it since. 

Possibly because it seems a particularly silly fight to pick: All the vulnerable residents have already been vaccinated!  They are more at risk from Covid, so they got jabbed first...And even if you do think the staff should be, what would you do with the ones who can't be?  Sack them too?

[Dave at kelton]

You prefer not to have the jab; we prefer not to employ you…simples👏

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

You prefer not to have the jab; we prefer not to employ you…simples👏

Take that further . you prefer to not have the jab , we remove you from the general populace ?

A totalitarian state, that no one thought possible, lurks just around the corner....

[udderlyoffroad]

33 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

You prefer not to have the jab; we prefer not to employ you…simples👏

Totally over simplified and unthought-through, actually...

And again, nobody seems to want to answer my question: What about those members of staff who can't be vaccinated?  You going to sack them too?

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

No such thing exists.  All endeavours bring with them risk

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.

 

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

Your of course right on all points. My point is if they're going to force someone to have a medical procedure and tell them it's definitely safe, it at least needs to be guaranteed, Falling short of that, you'd like to think anyone harmed via a vaccine would be compensated, but if texas is like here, then they won't. 

[ordnance]

Sounds fair enough to me, don't like it get another job. 

[KB1]

5 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

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...

 

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.

I keep repeating that over and over and it still won't come out right……..😩 A bit like Red lorry, Yellow Lorry😬

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Sounds fair enough to me, don't like it get another job. 

What if 'the other job' won't employ you without you having the vaccine?

[mossy835]

then have the vaccine,look after your self and other people.

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Sidebar...how about the general population not needing to shield if we're jabbed?  Let's start with that!

Makes sense if you have had both jabs, its supposed to reduce the effects if you do get it, they were talking about people taking LF tests if jabbed and having contact with someone who has tested positive,  think its being tested?

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Possibly because it seems a particularly silly fight to pick: All the vulnerable residents have already been vaccinated!  They are more at risk from Covid, so they got jabbed first...And even if you do think the staff should be, what would you do with the ones who can't be?  Sack them too?

It might be to stop staff getting covid or taking covid home to others, how else do employers protect staff from covid without being vaccinated,  staff won't want to wear masks forever and can't keep distance from the patients or residents of care homes.

I can see it being made a condition of employment in the care system, NHS,  probably education. 

[ordnance]

33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What if 'the other job' won't employ you without you having the vaccine?

Thought, their choice. 

[Vince Green]

If you are in the forces you have to have all your jabs, or you did in my day

[Dave at kelton]

3 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Totally over simplified and unthought-through, actually...

And again, nobody seems to want to answer my question: What about those members of staff who can't be vaccinated?  You going to sack them too?

It’s perfectly well thought through. We are not talking about people who “can’t” have it we are talking of those whose choice is to put the patients at risk in a healthcare environment. This is not about a takeaway or a hairdressers we are talking about.

Answering your question. If you can’t have it for medical reasons fair enough. No different to mask wearing exemptions.

[12gauge82]

14 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

 

Answering your question. If you can’t have it for medical reasons fair enough. No different to mask wearing exemptions.

Is it, it doesn't stop them putting the elderly at risk, surely they should be sacked? 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Thought, their choice. 

And if your employer decides that you must be jabbed, or here's your marching orders, you're good with that too, right?

 

9 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

It’s perfectly well thought through.

Sounds ominous...

10 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

We are not talking about people who “can’t” have it we are talking of those whose choice is to put the patients at risk in a healthcare environment. This is not about a takeaway or a hairdressers we are talking about.

And boom. "Thought through" didn't even make it through the next sentence unscathed.

The patients who are 'at risk' will have been vaccinated by now?

And what about prior to the jab - which let's not forget, is no silver bullet - how come it was acceptable then?

Being jabbed It doesn't mean you can't transmit the virus, yes your are less transmissible, but by how much is very much still undetermined, and may well vary according to the variant.

 

9 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

Answering your question. If you can’t have it for medical reasons fair enough. No different to mask wearing exemptions.

So, these people who can't have it for medical reasons: they still present the same or greater risk to patients than vaccine refuseniks.  But the former are fine, the latter aren't, in your world?

By the way, exemptions from wearing a mask in public, and in a clinical environment are (or should be) 2 different things.

 

[serrac]

On 23/06/2021 at 18:37, 12gauge82 said:

Your of course right on all points. My point is if they're going to force someone to have a medical procedure and tell them it's definitely safe, it at least needs to be guaranteed, Falling short of that, you'd like to think anyone harmed via a vaccine would be compensated, but if texas is like here, then they won't. 

The rules are being actively changed to ensure they have no case against an employer who requires the vaccine - fancy that.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/osha-shifts-position-on-recordability-9254437

So, should employers be legally liable for the deaths and injuries that will result from receiving vaccines mandated as a condition of employment?

[12gauge82]

23 minutes ago, serrac said:

The rules are being actively changed to ensure they have no case against an employer who requires the vaccine - fancy that.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/osha-shifts-position-on-recordability-9254437

So, should employers be legally liable for the deaths and injuries that will result from receiving vaccines mandated as a condition of employment?

I didn't know that. 

 

Absolutely, any employer forcing an employee to have a vaccine should be liable for any harm caused. 

[udderlyoffroad]

35 minutes ago, serrac said:

The rules are being actively changed to ensure they have no case against an employer who requires the vaccine - fancy that.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/osha-shifts-position-on-recordability-9254437

Eh? Did you actually read the article?

The reporting requirements for the US equivalent of the HSE have been clarified, should someone have an adverse reaction to the vaccine following compulsion or otherwise from the employer to get it.

This isn’t the same as the reporting protocol medical staff follow if you have an adverse reaction.

And I’m not sure why you’d think that would somehow prevent them from being sued.

Honestly, there’s enough mad illiberal nonsense around this pandemic without you inventing more.

[henry d]

On 23/06/2021 at 12:08, udderlyoffroad said:

It is a very different environment to us poor saps on this miserable island.

You know the answer to that, just mind the door doesn't smack you on the **** on the way out!

[Vince Green]

We were looking into getting my mother into a nursing home. A couple make a point of telling you on their websites that all their staff are fully vaccinated. We were reassured by that.

I think that's the reason behind this story. They can use it as a marketing positive, it is after all a private hospital like all hospitals in America.

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Vince Green

[serrac]

3 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Eh? Did you actually read the article?

The reporting requirements for the US equivalent of the HSE have been clarified, should someone have an adverse reaction to the vaccine following compulsion or otherwise from the employer to get it.

This isn’t the same as the reporting protocol medical staff follow if you have an adverse reaction.

And I’m not sure why you’d think that would somehow prevent them from being sued.

Honestly, there’s enough mad illiberal nonsense around this pandemic without you inventing more.

An enforcement action by OSHA against an employer who required an employee to take a vaccine experimental therapy which then resulted in an injury or death could be presented to a court as evidence that the the employer had caused that outcome and is thus liable.  The change in guidance obviates this possibility.

[Saltings]

if you are working in a venerable  community     a jab needed    well bodied maybe asymptomatic remember typhoid Mary                  to protect others jab and jab     

Edited June 25, 2021 by Saltings

[udderlyoffroad]

10 hours ago, serrac said:

An enforcement action by OSHA against an employer who required an employee to take a vaccine experimental therapy which then resulted in an injury or death could be presented to a court as evidence that the the employer had caused that outcome and is thus liable.  The change in guidance obviates this possibility.

Nonsense.

OSHA Enforcement actions can be taken regardless of whether the employer reports it as a recordable incident.  And again, how that's supposed to prevent you from getting sued?.  Once more, this is the USA's federal equivalent of the HSE.   They have no say over employment or health law at a state level!

If you fall ill as a result of the vaccine, what's the first thing you're likely to do?  Not come in to work!  Why would there then be a recordable incident at work?

By the way, seems OSHA is on the ball here re coercion:

Quote

 the vaccine must be truly voluntary.  For example, an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from their choice.  If employees are not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing adverse action, then the vaccine is not merely “recommended”

 

12 hours ago, henry d said:

You know the answer to that, just mind the door doesn't smack you on the **** on the way out!

Charming. 

And as discussed in another thread, one of my big complaints with this cluster is that I can't leave the country  So you're stuck with me Henry.

If I could get a green card, I'd be off this Island like a shot, I don't feel at home anymore.  My fellow countrymen and woman have utterly surrendered their few remaining liberties and seem rather too keen to inform on their neighbours not toeing the line.

And I've still only heard crickets in response to my question: If your employer demanded you have the jab or face your marching orders, you'd all roll your sleeves up, right?

[henry d]

3 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So you're stuck with me Henry.

I'm prepared to wait, won't be long now.

3 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

If your employer demanded you have the jab or face your marching orders, you'd all roll your sleeves up, right?

Yes and no, I'd do it because it is the right thing to do, did it in the services, still doing it, not a sheeple and not a conspiracy theorist.

[udderlyoffroad]

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

I'm prepared to wait, won't be long now.

I doubt it....it'll be sacrifice summer holidays to save winter/Christmas before long. 

Why will you be so glad to see the back of me for having a different view anyway? Would be rather boring if we all agreed.

Moreover, do you have any comment on the substance of my argument rather than just disliking me for my opinions?  In other words: Do you feel we've undergone a fundamental change in society as a result of this past 14months?

For me quite a telling moment, if insignificant in the grand scheme of things, was when people on here supported a senior police officer for getting involved in whether a scotch egg constituted a substantial meal or not.  We have truly, epically, lost the plot in this country if the police are getting involved with matters like that, and enjoying public support for doing so.