Vaccine Shedding

[ADW]

Anyone had staff issues where they don't want to be near other people that have had the vaccine? Not worried about distancing on covid but refusing to be in the same space as others that then have the vaccine. Just when things are relaxing on distancing rules looks like this subject could become an issue. Where is the legal stance?

 

[japancool]

Why don't they want to be near them?

 

[ADW]

It appears certain people are more afraid of catching stuff from the vaccine than covid. Next level anti-vaxer. It seems info has been spreading for all the conspiracists and some are latching onto this. That is my understanding so far.

 

[Newchodge]

Anyone had staff issues where they don't want to be near other people that have had the vaccine? Not worried about distancing on covid but refusing to be in the same space as others that then have the vaccine. Just when things are relaxing on distancing rules looks like this subject could become an issue. Where is the legal stance?

Either accommodate if you can or try to reason with them. If they have a genuinely held belief that associating with vaccinated people will be a helath and safety issue for them or their families, you will have to try and accommodate it. Of course, that will mean they cannot shop anywhere as they will not know who has and who has not been vaccinated.

 

[ADW]

I don't think reasoning will work on this occasion. Accomodating to a certain extent is viable if it were 2m but I believe they are hoping for a lot more space.

 

[fisicx]

Where is the legal stance?

The legal stance is they have to comply with the 2m rule/masks until 19 July. If they feel unable to be this close to someone else you can suggest they take unpaid leave. If they take legal action they will lose.

 

[japancool]

It appears certain people are more afraid of catching stuff from the vaccine than covid. Next level anti-vaxer. It seems info has been spreading for all the conspiracists and some are latching onto this. That is my understanding so far.

Sack 'em. Why would you want morons working for you anyway?

 

[Paul Norman]

From time to time people raise issues that are in this category. Unless you are able to accommodate it, which sounds improbable, the situation has no solution.

So you either have to ask them to leave, or everyone else.

I would be kind in the way I dealt with it, but there is not, in my view, room to go that far in accommodating everyone that has a personal foible.

Of course, if they can produce scientific evidence that being near a vaccinated person is dangerous, then I retract everything I said. Just to be clear, neither Twitter, nor Jane, nor James, down the pub, are approved sources of scientific evidence.

 

[AllUpHere]

I'm sure those who have been vaccinated will be more than happy to shut the objectors in a cupboard or something. Everyone's a winner.

 

[MBE2017]

I have heard a lot of people talking about this vaccine shedding. I have no idea if it is correct or not, since so much mis information from all sides regarding the vaccine. I see no difference in their concerns to people who wanted others vaccinated.

 

[gpietersz]

There is such a thing as vaccine shedding, with vaccines based on attenuated viruses (like oral polio - vaccine).

The covid vaccines are not of this type.

The covid anti-vaxxer variant of this idea is that they think people shed the spike protein. What harm this would do even if it were true is not clear to anyone.

 

[Alyson Dyer]

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-is-vaccine-shedding-covid

 

[japancool]

But stupidity is surprisingly contagious.

 

[The Byre]

But stupidity is surprisingly contagious.

And if there was a vaccine against stupidity, anti-vaxers still wouldn't take it!

 

[NickGrogan]

Either accommodate if you can or try to reason with them. If they have a genuinely held belief that associating with vaccinated people will be a helath and safety issue for them or their families, you will have to try and accommodate it. Of course, that will mean they cannot shop anywhere as they will not know who has and who has not been vaccinated.

So if I genuinely believe something, employers have to try and accommodate me? They can't just go - you're nuts?

 

[japancool]

What if I genuinely believed close contact with Jews, Muslims or Scotsmen was detrimental to my health?

 

[fisicx]

What if I genuinely believed close contact with Jews, Muslims or Scotsmen was detrimental to my health?

I had a traumatic experience with a Gundam toy as a child and can no longer be near plastic products.

 

[japancool]

I had a traumatic experience with a Gundam toy as a child and can no longer be near plastic products.

You are conjuring up images that are best left unvoiced.

 

[IanSuth]

If they are truly worried enough they feel 2m distance isnt even enough does that mean they are going to be a hermit from now on - most people they see outside will have been vaccinated. I assume all their shopping will be online (without them interacting with the delivery person) and they definitely will go nowhere near a hospitality venue or sporting event.

I suppose you could say you will let them work from home but let them know if you come across any evidence of any actions that they take out of work that would make you believe it is not a heartfelt belief then you will consider there representations to you to not return to the office with vaccinated people to be an act of gross misconduct and act accordingly.

 

[japancool]

I'd better leave this thread. Otherwise, I might lose some IQ points.

 

[japancool]

People who have had vaccines have a higher propensity to kick kittens.

 

[presentationgenius]

There's an evil little bit of me that says you should go out of your way to accommodate this belief by buying them a supply of those disposable paper suits, full face masks and so on... Then watch them sweat themselves in their personal sauna all day

 

[presentationgenius]

OH, and if they won't wear it, you can claim it's H&S stuff and that they're breaching protocols!

[EDIT: I've just (mockingly) passed this past my better half who's been Directer of HR for a big org. She says (pointing out that she doesn't know enough to be definitive!!!!!) that the requirement is that you do a risk assessment and adapt accordingly.

As the risk assessment will say this person is talking tosh, you'll not have to do anything at that point to accommodate them. It then becomes a question of who they respond and - in turn - how you respond to their response.

HTH

 

[gpietersz]

So if I genuinely believe something, employers have to try and accommodate me? They can't just go - you're nuts?

I want an answer to this. What beliefs need to be accomdated and what not?

 

[Newchodge]

I want an answer to this. What beliefs need to be accomdated and what not?

The belief that an employee is being subject to an avoidable health and safety risk has to be considered.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/44
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/100

 

[Fagin2021]

I want an answer to this. What beliefs need to be accomdated and what not?

And what beliefs can be asked about at a job interview? (I've always managed to conceal my conviction that large corporations are controlled by alien lizards in human form).

 

[Newchodge]

This is an extracr from a guide produced by barrister Gus Baker on the subject

This guide identifies ten key points that employers, employees and their advisors need to
know about health and safety dismissals and detriments in light of Covid 19. They are as
follows:
1. It is the employee’s belief that matters, not the employer’s opinion (p8).
2. Danger is widely interpreted and the actions of other employees count (p10).
3. Potential danger is not “imminent” (p12).
4. Employees can take positive steps to protect others from danger even if it hurts their
employer’s business (p13).
5. The “danger” doesn’t have to be to fellow workers (p15).
6. Damages under section 44 and 100 are unlimited, subject to no qualifying service
requirement and may be extensive (p16).
7. Constructive dismissal claims are likely if employers fail to deal with health and safety
issues.
8. The rights are individual and not collective (p21).
9. Workers may be protected as well as employees (p23).
10. Employers must be clear about why they are taking the action they are (p24).

I have added Bold to the most worrying part.

You can find the whole guide here https://www.outertemple.com/2020/04...h-safety-dismissals-the-emploment-rights-act/

 

[cjd]

This is an extracr from a guide produced by barrister Gus Baker on the subject

1. It is the employee’s belief that matters, not the employer’s opinion (p8).
[...]
I have added Bold to the most worrying part.

In this case though it's not the employer's opinion that there is no risk; it's a scientific fact that there is no risk. Virus (vaccination) shedding can only occur if a live virus is used in the vaccination (and even then there's no actual risk). None of the COVID jabs contain live virus. In this case the employee is simply deluded.

If there's no objective H&S risk the Act can't apply surely?

I can see this moving to "well I believe there's a risk, so there is one. It's my mental health."
In which case the entire world has lost the plot.

 

[Newchodge]

In this case though it's not the employer's opinion that there is no risk; it's a scientific fact that there is no risk. Virus (vaccination) shedding can only occur if a live virus is used in the vaccination (and even then there's no actual risk). None of the COVID jabs contain live virus. In this case the employee is simply deluded.

If there's no objective H&S risk the Act can't apply surely?

I can see this moving to "well I believe there's a risk, so there is one. It's my mental health."
In which case the entire world has lost the plot.

It hasn't been tested in court, so the answer is really not clear. However, if it is a genuinely held belief ignoring it may cause serious mental health issues, so the employee was right in that being forced to share space with vaccinated people caused them harm!

 

[The Byre]

1. It is the employee’s belief that matters, not the employer’s opinion

As I come from a family of lawyers, this confirms my long-held belief that barristers are just like the rest of us - except in matters of intellect and intelligence.

 

[gpietersz]

1. It is the employee’s belief that matters, not the employer’s opinion (p8).

Thanks for that, very interesting.

Page 8 makes it look a bit better though: "circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent". The rulings in the two cases it discusses seem reasonable too.

 

[Fagin2021]

It hasn't been tested in court, so the answer is really not clear. However, if it is a genuinely held belief ignoring it may cause serious mental health issues, so the employee was right in that being forced to share space with vaccinated people caused them harm!

Which yet again sends the message that the only way to be safe from liability is never to employ anyone.

 

[Newchodge]

Thanks for that, very interesting.

Page 8 makes it look a bit better though: "circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent". The rulings in the two cases it discusses seem reasonable too.

'reasonable' appears many times. But think about this. I have a phobia about snakes. I cannot bear to look even at a pencil drawing of one. If my employer asked me, knowing of my phobia, to pick up and remove a grass snake that appeared in the car park, I would be caused harm, not physically by the snake but mentally by my phobia. If the employee who genuinely fears vaccinated people were forced to share space with them, they may be caused harm on a similar basis.

 

[The Byre]

Page 8 makes it look a bit better though: "circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent". The rulings in the two cases it discusses seem reasonable too.

The keyword being reasonable.

There is no reason to believe in vaccine shedding, women's only gravity, votes for mice, or any other lunatic idea. Vaccine shedding will probably never be tested in court because it falls at the first hurdle of being a reasonable belief.

Phobias are real. Dogs, wasps, snakes, people have them for all kinds of things. They are a thing. They are based on real fears. Vaccine shedding is like women's only gravity. Imagined.

 

[japancool]

'reasonable' appears many times. But think about this. I have a phobia about snakes. I cannot bear to look even at a pencil drawing of one. If my employer asked me, knowing of my phobia, to pick up and remove a grass snake that appeared in the car park, I would be caused harm, not physically by the snake but mentally by my phobia. If the employee who genuinely fears vaccinated people were forced to share space with them, they may be caused harm on a similar basis.

What about the mental health effects that these people cause their colleagues? Doesn't their behaviour fall under some kind of anti-discrimination law?

 

[Newchodge]

What about the mental health effects that these people cause their colleagues? Doesn't their behaviour fall under some kind of anti-discrimination law?

I can't see how this individual's (mad) belief can really affect their colleagues.

 

[gpietersz]

I can't see how this individual's (mad) belief can really affect their colleagues.

I find talking to single minded activists, conspiracy theorists, fanatics, and people with fixed ideas stressful. I have a reasonable belief that my mental health would be affected by working with the sort of person likely to beleive that.

 

[Newchodge]

I find talking to single minded activists, conspiracy theorists, fanatics, and people with fixed ideas stressful. I have a reasonable belief that my mental health would be affected by working with the sort of person likely to beleive that.

That's easily resolved. Don't talk to them, or, if you must to fulfill your role, both of you are only to talk about the work.

 

[NickGrogan]

The belief that an employee is being subject to an avoidable health and safety risk has to be considered.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/44
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/100

So if I believe that my fingers will fall off if I type too fast or for too long, then my employer would have to adapt my work?

 

[cjd]

' If the employee who genuinely fears vaccinated people were forced to share space with them, they may be caused harm on a similar basis.

As 86% of the adult population have been vaccinated with at least one dose it seems to me that this person can not live in our society let alone do a productive job involving anything to do with people.

The only 'reasonable adjustment' that could be made here would be if the person could work from home so the route to take if that is not possible would be dismissal on grounds of capability?