Some companies to reduce sick pay
 

Interesting, some companies are to reduce sick pay for unvaccinated staff that isolate due to covid.

I wonder if this will end up in court. Could this be the thin edge of the wedge, if you are ill due to "self inflicted injury or disease" what will happen to your sick pay?

macafee2

This..
 

It's not good, Ikea lost any further business from me and like Morrison's last week I won't spend another penny in their stores. It will end up in the courts for sure.
An unvaccinated person goes to work, he/she catches the virus from a vaccinated person and has to isolate, the vaccinated person also has to isolate but gets full pay whilst the unvaccinated person doesn't, it stinks and is very likely in breach of many laws.
If that was me in that position, I'd carry on going to work and keep my mouth shut.

Thin end of the wedge it seems. The clamour increases to desperate levels in an effort to blackmail those circa 8 million who choose not to follow HMGOV advice. Except it seems to now not be advice - more an instruction. Or else.

Anyone seen the amusing correlation between a fabled tennis player's name and a certain 'voluntary' medical procedure?

So would I, in theory, but would the symptoms/virus attack be sufficiently mild?

Kev

If someone catches covid from you because you went into working knowing you had covid, what would your legal position be if they found out and sued you? Of course proving they got it from you would be neigh on impossible I suspect but lets say they can and do. If you pass on what cold be a killer disease, knowing you had what could be a killer disease and could pass it on, what does that say about you?
Keeping quiet is one thing but when you think about possible consequences, it can become quite serious.


macafee2

Legal opinion needed on 'self-inflicted', together with 'wilfully infecting someone else' whilst in a national state of ill-health. Another big sols. payday. If they get away with it that's another stride down the road to perdition. GOV would welcome it as a useful tool to back up the hyperbole, most of which regularly figures in papers and newscasts as bunkum.

Employers doing it might find themselves in trouble, as they should. Government will do nothing until they have to.

Quite simply
 

People have lost their minds over this illness, `protect the vulnerable` they say, get a jab that only protects the person that takes it for a few short weeks. Have a jab to protect the obese fast food idle types that have done nothing to protect themselves and are the reason that the death toll is high, not 150,000 high as that figure is silly and incorrect relating to covid. Then you get firms like Ikea pulling stunts like cutting pay, if you're going to spread the virus you first have to be infected by it, that's how it works.
So, 90% of the people have been jabbed with at least two jabs, 65% with three and still it spreads, the 10% not jabbed are responsible for all of the infections and deaths then? No, they're not and firms that see it as a way to force people into doing something they don't want to do are out of order.
In response to your question, it could never be proved where an infection came from so it's not really an issue but yes, I would willingly go to work with the virus if I was being singled out for discriminatory reasons, perversely, I would only be posing a risk to the others that aren't jabbed if the vaccines are so good, the jabbed ones would only catch a cold if you believe the hype, if measures to protect the jabbed have to be brought in, it doesn't inspire confidence in the jabs.

and we wonder why the virus spreads. We have people prepared to go and perhaps infect others and I assume not care about those they infect.
I hang my head in disbelief and shame of peoples "I don't care attitude" to their fellow humans.

I think Ikea are wrong, I think care workers losing their jobs because they are not vaccinated is wrong.

macafee2

I'm afraid your assumptions, with respect, are wrong in every way Ian. There is little or no "I don't care attitudes" prevalent so far as I can see. People's 'attitudes' vary from the fear of the unknown to the mistrust of the gov's methods and history and the manufactured panic aroused by paid advocates whose fantastical statements are only now being exposed for what they really are - hopeless exaggeration.

If you need evidence of the hyperbole, pick up a newspaper - virtually any one.

According to most sources there are now about 8 million of us who have not taken advantage of the gov's generous offer. Name calling and scandalising by subversion tactics merely goes to give support to those who prefer not to believe the latest suspect Messiahs. Not a promising sight for the future, is it.

I agree with you 100%.

The other people have the right not to be infected, regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not.