2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 1763 | 1764 | 1765 | 1766 | 1767 | 1768 | 1769 | 1770 | 1771 | 1772 | 1773 | ... | 2423

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2781965 22-Sep-2021 06:10

Handle9:

I would like to see employers being able to make vaccination mandatory but this is very difficult political ground for a Labour government.

Seems like something that could be challenged in the High Court.

If you're surrounded by unvaccinated fellow employees, then it's definitely a safety issue / threat to life, and would discriminate in the workplace against people who for reasons beyond their control are vulnerable.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781966 22-Sep-2021 06:23

Scott3:
Batman:

it's definitely the underworld that spread the virus. it's all over the gangs, it's in the prisons. also definitely underestimated - just look at the prisoner released that's brought it outside of AKL now

I think you have really over-reached with this speculation.

Regarding gangs, we only publicly know of two gang linked individuals (from rival gangs) that have been infected.

It seems very unlikely the virus is in the prisons. it would spread super rapidly in that residential setting, and people would get symptoms.

I hope you're right. I'm calling it as I see it. I sure hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300412629/covid19-spreads-to-third-gang-as-hells-angels-prospect-infected

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781968 22-Sep-2021 06:47

Fred99:
Handle9:

I would like to see employers being able to make vaccination mandatory but this is very difficult political ground for a Labour government.

Seems like something that could be challenged in the High Court.

If you're surrounded by unvaccinated fellow employees, then it's definitely a safety issue / threat to life, and would discriminate in the workplace against people who for reasons beyond their control are vulnerable.

To change the law around unilateral changes to an employment contract would require legislation. I'm not sure why that would be able to be challenged in the high court.

The law as it stands is deliberately vague/broad - in this case it really should be very specific. Hopefully it gets changed.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2781972 22-Sep-2021 07:01

Handle9:

To change the law around unilateral changes to an employment contract would require legislation. I'm not sure why that would be able to be challenged in the high court.

Because it's fundamentally about human rights with a conflict between the right to be kept safe in a workplace and privacy/right to refuse invasive medical treatment. I'd wager that this will end up in the high court anyway if parliament passes legislation making vaccination a general condition for employment.

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781973 22-Sep-2021 07:06

I thought it was before the courts already, with the customs employee?

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781974 22-Sep-2021 07:07

Fred99:
Handle9:

To change the law around unilateral changes to an employment contract would require legislation. I'm not sure why that would be able to be challenged in the high court.

Because it's fundamentally about human rights with a conflict between the right to be kept safe in a workplace and privacy/right to refuse invasive medical treatment. I'd wager that this will end up in the high court anyway if parliament passes legislation making vaccination a general condition for employment.

Given that parliament can override any law it chooses then creating exemptions should be reasonably straight forward.

Anyone would be free to refuse. No one is forced to be employed. In many ways that's not really true but from a legal perspective it would be acceptable.

I'm sure you're right that it would end up in court. I'm sure Sue Grey and her and of defectives would love to litigate the issue.

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781975 22-Sep-2021 07:11

Ge0rge: I thought it was before the courts already, with the customs employee?

That was in relation to the health order not general employment law.

Customs won that case.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126298781/customs-justified-in-sacking-border-worker-who-refused-to-get-covid19-vaccine--employment-authority-rules

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781976 22-Sep-2021 07:13

mattwnz:

I have said it previously. I would put the suburbs were CT was occurring into a level 4.5 and give them helicopter payments so they don't need to work, and it takes the pressure off them. So a proper lockdown to keep people isolated from one another. Then very strict enforcing to make sure people didn't flout the rules. Some of the experts have previously mentioned that level 4 restrictions may need to be increased for delta if case number didn't drop.

The thing is that the government has increased the fines today anyway.

A bit hard to seperate suburbs, not unless you had Police on the myriad of streets at the boundaries. But you still have family/neighbour intermingling. Helicopter payments every week? Like the wage subsidy? Intermingling is occurring because they want to socialise. They may be WFH or on a benefit, or getting a wage subsidy

What very strict enforcement so they dont flout? A Police officer or Army worker standing outside every 5th house, patrolling? Thats the only way

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2781977 22-Sep-2021 07:14

Yep. Parliament can ignore high court rulings, but at their peril. National tried with rulings against EQC etc, a decade ago it didn't end up very well. Actually I'm not even sure if it's ended yet.

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781978 22-Sep-2021 07:17

Handle9:
Ge0rge: I thought it was before the courts already, with the customs employee?

That was in relation to the health order not general employment law.

Customs won that case.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126298781/customs-justified-in-sacking-border-worker-who-refused-to-get-covid19-vaccine--employment-authority-rules

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/451916/mandatory-vaccination-order-under-spotlight-in-high-court

Seems that it's not done with yet.

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2781979 22-Sep-2021 07:17

Handle9:
Ge0rge: I thought it was before the courts already, with the customs employee?

That was in relation to the health order not general employment law.

Customs won that case.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126298781/customs-justified-in-sacking-border-worker-who-refused-to-get-covid19-vaccine--employment-authority-rules

Ge0rge is quite correct.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126417607/covid19-sacked-border-worker-didnt-give-a-reason-for-not-having-vaccine

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781980 22-Sep-2021 07:18

Fred99:
Yep. Parliament can ignore high court rulings, but at their peril. National tried with rulings against EQC etc, a decade ago it didn't end up very well. Actually I'm not even sure if it's ended yet.

If they design the legislation and respective amendments correctly the high court would likely not rule against them.

There would be no reason to just as the ERA saw no reason to rule against customs.

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781981 22-Sep-2021 07:21

cshwone:
Handle9:

That was in relation to the health order not general employment law.

Customs won that case.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126298781/customs-justified-in-sacking-border-worker-who-refused-to-get-covid19-vaccine--employment-authority-rules

Ge0rge is quite correct.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126417607/covid19-sacked-border-worker-didnt-give-a-reason-for-not-having-vaccine

Thanks I hadn't seen that one.

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2781982 22-Sep-2021 07:22

Imo there's no need for compulsory vaxx. If every sane person in the country gets vaxxed that should get us 97%+ easy.

What does concern me is outlying suburbs with lower employment and lower car ownership and no vaxx centre. I expect the govt will begin to increase service in those places as the vaxx rate in central locations gets to the high 90s. I can see they are starting with mobile service so that's good.

Better for the average employer to use gentle persuasion and maybe a carrot rather than a stick if there's a vaxx issue with the workplace.

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2781986 22-Sep-2021 07:36

tdgeek:
What very strict enforcement so they dont flout?

Matt patrolling clover park with his ticket book.

1 | ... | 1763 | 1764 | 1765 | 1766 | 1767 | 1768 | 1769 | 1770 | 1771 | 1772 | 1773 | ... | 2423