ALL TRADE UNIONISTS are familiar with the slogan: “An injury to one is an injury to all.” It encapsulates the principle of solidarity and signals the determination of the collective not to be picked-off one-by-one. Employers who are not brought up sharply by their employees’ union for harming one of its members, will very soon feel emboldened to harm them all. Much more challenging, from the union’s point-of-view is how to guard against the behaviour of a single worker imperilling the health and safety of their co-workers. How to prevent the injury of all by one.
It might be expected that, with the Delta variant of the Covid-19 virus rampaging through Auckland, and mass vaccination being presented as the most important escape-route from the pandemic, the institutions dedicated to the protection of workers’ health and safety would be leading the charge against those who refuse to acknowledge the obligations of social solidarity. Why then, are the trade unions not at the forefront of a “No Jab, No Job!” movement? In the midst of a pandemic, a refusal to be vaccinated (without medical justification) is surely the crowning example of individual indifference to the welfare of the whole. Is it not the duty of the trade unions to take a resolute stand against such anti-social selfishness?
In the context of a Labour Government with an absolute parliamentary majority, is it not, similarly, the duty of the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Wood, to do all within his power to ensure that the obligations of solidarity are backed-up by the full force of the law? If, upon inquiry, that same Minister discovered that employers presenting their employees with the “No Jab, No Job!” alternative would almost certainly be acting unlawfully, then, surely, his next step would be to arrange for the law to be changed? After all, this is exactly what was done to ensure that “border workers” were all fully vaccinated. If “No Jab, No Job!” was good enough for customs officers and stevedores, then why not for every other group of New Zealand workers?
Wood was unable to provide a clear answer to questions such as these when he appeared (by Zoom) before the relevant parliamentary select committee. A superb chance to cast himself in the role of a hard-nosed, no-nonsense, champion of the working-class was squandered. Instead Wood chose to present himself as the inconsistent and mealy-mouthed champion of, well, God knows what.
The employers of workers already on the payroll, he informed the committee, could not say “No Jab, No Job!”, but, it would be perfectly okay for them to demand it of their next job applicant as a condition of employment. What a principled stand! Almost as principled as dodging the questions relating to the employers’ legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment for their employees. Isn’t New Zealand lucky to have a Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety who is willing to place the rights of anti-vaxxers ahead of the rights of everyone else in the workplace – and the country?
Wood’s failure is emblematic of the more general failure of the entire New Zealand Left. To prevent certain classes of citizens from feeling hurt or offended by the free speech of their fellow citizens, “leftists” are all in favour of breaching the Bill of Rights Act and jailing “hate speakers” for three years. Those same “leftists” would not, however, dream of overruling the Bill of Rights Act’s prohibition against forcing medical procedures upon citizens – even at the cost of undermining the nation’s collective effort to defeat the Covid-19 Pandemic.
A trade union movement dominated by the working-class wouldn’t have a bar of this sort of “leftism”. The idea that some ignorant believer in conspiracy theories peddled by right-wing nutters on the Internet should be allowed to refuse vaccination – putting countless other Kiwis at risk – would strike them as complete bullshit. A working-class-led trade union movement would have been in the ear of Michael Wood for weeks, urging him to institute a “No Jab, No Job!” policy ASAP.
Sadly, however, New Zealand’s trade union movement isn’t led by the working-class (of which fewer than 10 percent now belong to a trade union) but by a council dominated by middle-class public servants of every description. A surprising number of these regard the right to refuse having their bodies polluted by injections of unwanted fluids as sacred, and not to be overruled for any reason – not even to preserve the health, safety, livelihoods, and lives, of their fellow citizens.
The idea that there are circumstances (fortunately rare) in which the safety of all might require the injury (but only to the wallet) of one, would strike them as barbaric. Unless, of course, the “one” was engaging in Hate Speech!
Wood looks to be on fairly firm ground here. A worker could take an employment case against his employer, if the conditions of his employment were changed, more so if this was done without mutual agreement.
A new employer can go ahead and set any conditions she wants for anybody starting a new job. These are separate issues from any Bill of Right’s argument.
Changing the law to squash an existing Bill of Right’s right, would also set a bad precedent- those rights have been fought for too. Some people may also have quite reasonable anti-vax arguments, about its efficacy, and the unknown long-term effects, and they do have the right to concern themselves with their own health and safety. The union’s job is to put the worker ‘s interests first.
The ‘ injecting unwanted fluid ‘ argument has more holes than a sieve, and it is this sort of mentality which is almost impossible to argue against as they’re generally thick bloody awful people. Probably cash bribable.
Apparently the slow uptake amongst Maori is because of a racist health system…Yeah, right
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-democracy-reporting/126213295/associate-health-minister-disappointed-with-vaccine-uptake-among-mori-admits-system-is-racist
If all science was considered in the decision about vaccines you have a better point, but there are two drugs that work with basically no side effects, out of patent and would cost next to nothing to use. But we’re not allowed to have them.
Galileo & the Catholic Church comes to mind.
Secondly I believe the government has taken away all legal rights to sue the drugs company and the government for any problems with the rushed & basically badly (by usual standards) tested vaccines.
One only has to look at what happened with the Thalidomide scandal to worry about that legal move.
We are not being given the full and honest facts to make a considered opinion. Therefore I believe, under human rights we have the right to protect our body and withhold consent.
p.s. I have had every vaccine I can think of from my travelling days, so the IMHO, moronic strawman argument (or n true Scotsman) that all people against these rushed covid vaccines are anti vaxxers is shown to be illogical.
“Galileo & the Catholic Church comes to mind.”
Not if you know anything about Galileo & the Catholic Church.
While the concept is protect your neighbor (dont kill granny – get a jab)
The concept of personal responsibility seems to have been thrown under the bus.
So if I was an employer (Over the years I have owned various business from 3 – 65 employees)
What would I do.
Yes, strongly recommend and help employees get a jab.
For the anti vaxers. I would respect their choice. After all my best most skilled worker may be an anti vaxer.
After all, who would suffer if the Virus hit my workplace?
Probably the anti vaxers.
The remainder of the workforce(who have to self isolate for 14 days) probably a few sniffles.
I most certainly would NOT say no jab no job.
Agreed with your more balanced (than most) view, EXCEPT the term anti-vaxer. It has become a pejorative term and is neither logical nor a reasonable comment. NOT all people against this vaccine are anti all vaccines.
I struggle to see why this is too difficult of a thought process to follow for usually sensible, sane and informed people?
It’s almost in the ‘too stupid to be stupid’ category.
The term anti-vaxer should not be used for the Covid jab. I have had the jab and I have never ever been immunised even as a child for anything ever.
Those who are opposed to having the vaccination are opposed mostly I think because this was ‘invented’ in one hell of a rush and hasn’t had the 5+ years of testing that vaccinations generally have, how realistic is it that we know the long term results of this vaccination.
I know lots of people who won’t be having the jab, people that I respect, and I think that is their democratic choice and long may it remain so.
It would be the thin end of the wedge if this was the start of making people have the jab, whichever one it is.
If the manufacturers cannot be sued as suggested in a comment further up then that is another real concern.
Developed in one hell of rush all right. However, there were important political imperatives and commercial ones to drive that. The essential drivers.
When I first heard a prominent politician overseas talking about having a vaccine it seemed to be floating an ‘instant coffee’ solution with no understanding of research or respect for it.
(Scientists in our family have been in the world of research.)
But you can still have someone who doesn’t agree with the vaccine but take it and someone who is stone cold anti vax surely?…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-58103604
I can’t see that this obligation can possibly be placed on employers. As Snow White says they would be setting themselves up for unlimited liability that the vaccine manufacturers have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves from in their purchase agreements.
If a law is to be established about mandatary vaccination with novel technology that has so far been associated in the US UK and EU with in 9 months twice as many injuries and deaths according to their various reporting systems than all vaccinations recorded since they were put in place 30 years ago , then that law must be put in place by the government and the government must police it , not the employer.
I agree with Off White. You seem to have abandoned all your principles here Chris , I am very disappointed.
D J S
I can only assume given the normally well thought out and wise opinions that Chris kindly shares free of charge, that this is mainly ‘stirring’ to create a debate.
D’accord.
Don’t be a scab get the jab.
And why is it the employers the union has to engage to police what they want to impose on their fellow workers. They should do their own policing if they represent the workforce. It is entirely an issue between workers.
D J S
Yes. This is a principal that Trotter has forgotten, if he ever knew. Workers and unions become strong and stay strong by solving their own problems.
Bentham stated the “fundamental axiom” that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”,
If this maxim does underlie “British” law, sorting out who are the greatest number my be an objective test but and as to what is the greatest good, that remains a subjective test.
Re Mr Kraut above –
Florid lexicon tends to distract from reason.
You can take out the passion and if your argument has substance, present a more compelling case.
As an eminent QC once told me when reviewing book material I presented for review:
“Passion is best kept for the bedroom”
Be careful, Ross, we cannot compartmentalize our humanity. Passion, the heart, emotions, imagery ,… is what makes us human. Take that away, and we have the Terminator.
The Terminator (1984)
https://youtu.be/k64P4l2Wmeg?t=2
I suspect Mr Trotter is conducting a straw poll.
Judging by the chatter elsewhere/everywhere (where it is allowed and not censored) the Covid jabs, their efficacy and safety and the very real prospect of mandated ‘vaccines’ and vaccine passports is very much the topic du jour. As it should be.
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching across Europe, Canada, Australia and the UK against mandated covid vaccines and discrimination against those who choose not to take the jab. We are so very far behind on this.
“Hundreds of thousands of people are marching across Europe, Canada, Australia and the UK against mandated covid vaccines and discrimination against those who choose not to take the jab. We are so very far behind on this”
Where would you rather be at the moment Rosemary? here, or the Europe, Australia, Canada and UK?
Think more carefully before determining that we are “behind”.
I hope so.
I think we are doing pretty bloody well , TBH. As for Tucker Carlson and his ilk, and his counterparts in the UK,… one only has to look at the chaos and mortality rates per capita / head of population in their country’s to see that we are RIGHT and they are WRONG. Case closed. They can shut the ferk up.
As of August 2021 in Nz there had been 67 successful ACC claims for vaccine treatment injury (of 201 total)
Mostly for allergic reaction. This from a total of 2.5million doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
You won’t see me marching for my personal freedoms, or against vaccines on those numbers.
I think those that take the minimal risk (to live is to take risk anyway) to get vaccinated will be living a more free version of life in future. Those not vaccinated will be increasingly excluded.
While there are certain jobs where vaccine should be demanded because those they serve are vulnerable I would not agree with mandating vaccination. However those that are vaccinated should be free to do thinks that the unvaccinated cannot .This would include travelling on planes and on trains there should be a separate carriage for the unvaccinated at a 20 % extra fare and bare from public transport.
Shops with fully vaccinated staff should get a sticker so the customer can feel at ease.
The government has to spell out the rules as it is not fair to leave the job to employers who have enough to worry about just surviving .
Join the picket line against covid-19
If you have ever stood shoulder to shoulder on a picket line with your brothers and sisters against an unfair employer.
If you have ever given a Koha to a worthy cause.
If you have ever donated blood at your local blood collection centre.
Now is your time to step up and bare arms to keep the enemy out.
As a contractor who is often called to work in Auckland’s hospitals, I have had the privilege and honour, after border workers and health professionals, to be offered to be immunised with the Phizer vaccine.
I received my first injection on the fourth floor of Auckland Hospiital at approximately 4pm May 6, 2021
Standing in line with the health workers and nurses, who were there for their second jab. I heard a nurse say to her colleagues, in a stage whisper, “I’m exhausted!”. “But it’s not from a side-effect of the vaccine, I’m overworked”. Her joke elicited a dry knowing chuckle from the other nurses.
If you can’t do it for your family and your workmates do it for the nurses.
Don’t be a scab, Get the Jab.
I believe front-line border workers should be required to be vaccinated for their own protection under H&S laws. But for the general population this is just the on-going conundrum for any civilised society – the rights of an individual v’s those of the collective. The vaccination question is magnified now because of the current covid crisis; but in reality has existed for many years for many other diseases – for which we normally manage a reasonable level of herd immunity; this having been achieved by education and persuasion. I think the jury is still out as to if you are less likely to pass the virus on if you are vaccinated, so, as much as I would like everyone to be vaccinated, compulsion at this stage would seem to infringe on individual rights. Maybe we could impose a levy on the unvaccinated to cover the increased risk of being hospitalised, like ACC do for high risk industry.
My read of the situation is that refusenik workers in sensitive areas (border, health etc) ultimately CAN be legally fired for refusing to follow a reasonable request from their employer. It doesn’t require a law change. Clearly, anti-vaxxers are putting co-workers, customers and the wider community at risk, so there is a strong case to say their employer is required under the current HSAW law to act to prevent harm and the ERA allows for dismissal in cases where a worker endangers his colleagues.
In the wider workforce, employers can require anti-Covid compliance of potential new employees, just as they can insist on pre-employment drug testing. And, as with drug testing, the requirement for vaccinations can be negotiated into both individual and collective agreements, if both parties agree.
Unions are going to find themselves in a difficult position; protecting the wider interests of the workforce and stakeholders, while at the same time offering legal support to individuals who are going to get sacked. It’s not going to be clear until a few cases have been taken, lost, and appealed. It could take years to get a solid legal position defined.
What are you doing over here mate?- it was you and that mad cat lady who got me banned at the standard. Anyways good to see you and appreciate your point of view. And agreed, its going to be a doosey in times to come, so many angles on this. From freedom of choice to the Bill of Rights, to overriding that in order of the collective good.
Perhaps we can take a leaf from earlier generations such as those of World War Two and somehow appropriate it to this new unseen enemy. There is a balance that needs to be cut between individual rights and that of the collective good going on here.
All this discussion is predicated on the assumption that the “vaccine” prevents infection and the transfer of infection.
Isn’t anyone keeping up?
D J S
“All this discussion is predicated on the assumption that the “vaccine” prevents infection and the transfer of infection.”
That’s appears to be your assumption. It’s actually predicated on the fact that it reduces, rather than eliminates, both infection and transmission. It remains a valuable tool in infection management/
All tools in pandemic control have their uses and limitations and should be sensibly applied.
That’s one of the major reasons blanket stands against vaccines or masks or lock-downs etc based on the limitations of a particular strategy is so flawed.
There are are some alternative opinions which are hard to ignore.
The below submitted paper to The Lancet by a team of researchers in Vietnam is pre print only, so may never be offiicially accepted but lines 259 – 261 in the down loaded PDF are interesting.
As interesting to me would be to know if there are any on this thread who would label this group of scientists
anti -vaxers or conspiracy theorists?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733
Thanks for that
Sorry if you feel the need to say the obvious .Most of those who comment on this feed are smart enough to know the facts and to base an opinion on matters weather for or against the arguement.
The way I see it many years ago some argued against the inforcement of seat belt wearing. They said it was their right to drive without being told to buckle up . Some quoted examples of how people died because they could not get out and that can happen but on the whole many have survived because of seat belts and no one wants the law changed.
Smoking /riding a bike with no helmet /drink driving / the list goes on of thinks that are banned or frowned on and at some stage not being vaccinated will be another.
Trevor this is not the same as any of the things you have talked about: Smoking /riding a bike with no helmet /drink driving.
I think seeing a ‘common good’ is less common now than in times gone by. In the time of World War 2 a tangible reach was into virtually every town, city and rural district across the country, every corner. We were in it together, we operated for the cause.
We are so much more singular now, marching to our own beat, not hearing anyone else’s.
An Alabama doctor made the news recently for saying he would not treat those not Covid vaccinated. Naturally there was backlash. The reactions showed the intellectual and emotional complexities around an issue like ‘enforced’ vaccination.
Of course loud voices had it that the doctor should treat all patients, it was his duty. Prospective patients’ personal choices and circumstances had nothing to do with their need for medical attention.
It reminded me of a story a few years back when the US supreme court ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. For the baker’s ‘religious reasons’ not because the couple was gay. He got to choose his customers based on his beliefs.
Three years ago a Warkworth baker was in the news in a similar situation.
Are there employment laws about race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation? Can vaccinations join the list?
I love it “The good old bullshit trade union leaders have been cast aside” – and they were a colourful lot, all politicians in their own right!
Totally agree CT.
Personal responsibility – I dont want a VAX so I accept it will cost me my job maybe. I will not make my choice endanger others and opt to take the consequences of my actions.
This isnt about taking away people’s freedom of choice, it is asking them to evaluate what is most important to them and act accordingly. What I’d say to all those My rights, My Way believers is – THE WORLD HAS CHANGED and it might be worth thinking about how your beliefs are or are not going to help you to survive into a much more demanding future.
Without community, we have nothing.
I broadly agree Chris but would put it differently. No jab then redeployment where workforce and public safety require it.
Nobody should enforce their beliefs upon their subordinates.
I vow not to patronise any business that does this. A stand must be made to end the misuse of power, and it must be immediate and confidently made.
I respect those who think Covid is a hoax and do not agree with vaccinations, so I have a bold
notice on my front door which reads:
Welcome to my Covid Free home – But – No Masks, No Jabs, No Entry.
The union decisions should come from the members not from union leaders. The union is its members. Not all members will agree to vaccination and even less will agree to authorising the company to fire their workmates. The stick approach is misguided because it entrenches refusal and causes the division and vitriol we are starting to see become widespread and accepted in nz. As the vaccination program continues the refusal rate will decline. What to do about the hardcore 10ish% (guessing)? The answer is not to fire them or ostracise or demonise them. It will need to be to learn to live with them as part of our new normal so that we can all be part of a society that talks to each other rather than factionalising. Factions breed the conspiracy theories and echo chambers that cause the refusal rate in the first place.
I agree that it should be up to the workers.
We should put it to the vote like we do for strike action.
If the majority vote for strike action, and a few disagree and decide to work on, they are scabs.
If the majority agree that we should all be vacinated, and a few disagree and refuse to get vaccinated, they are scabs.
Comments are closed.