- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,658
- 14,846
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
sorted
The amount of deliberately disseminated disinformation has created a unique situation. The 'anti-vaccine' movement seems to need these requirements put in place, that wouldn't normally be necessary.
So many of the areas are incredibly complicated, multifaceted and highly nuanced. A specialist in one area may not be able to properly understand and explain specialist information from another area. Even though they have clear connection. This is why we have experts, and why we look to them.
Yes, the system sometimes fails, sometimes the majority expert opinion has been wrong. What would you replace it with?
When a single sentence has enough misinformation to require several paragraphs in response, the nuance is gone and it's a serious problem.
Here is some reasons why I mostly support it.
I think it supports the employers/management because it provides them legal protection. It helps every individual business/association/etc work out specific legal frameworks and litigation. And doesn't need to find individual legal advice and frameworks with shareholders, partners, suppliers, retailers etc.
I think it supports workers/employees if their employer/manager is 'anti-vaccine'. They don't have to worry about the power dynamic, or legal positions. They can just point to the Government requirements. There is a clear outline of expectations in the workplace.
The Government/leadership should follow the advice of the majority of the science, research, data, medical expertise and knowledge etc.
The other view to that story could be argued that he is making a personal choice, that may reduce or remove his ability to represent his constituents.
I don't think either view is fair.
This is, at least, misinformation.
It's a short, powerful looking sentence. But it's fallacious.
Why ignore
1. Any Federal MP sitting virtually, has already reduced their capacity to fully participate.2. There have been rules that have been adapted or changed, where reasonable, since the pandemic. This one can continue to change.3. There is multiple reasons that a secure video link is required. It makes sense that it would be installed in their electorate office, but doesn't mean it's not possible to install it into certain homes, or to find some other way to connect securely.4. The Federal parliament created the strict rules around virtual attendance.
Additionally, he previously reduced his capacity to participate in certain areas of Government before. When he stood down from "the speaker's panel and his committee chairmanship".
A small part of his reasoning was that he believed Greg Hunt misled him. The implication being that he would now mistrust Greg Hunt.
His very first statement in his list was.
“I’m uncomfortable with mass vaccination of the population, with the vaccine that is, according to Minister Hunt, being trialled across the world.”
So the story is based on a Facebook post by a Federal MP, explaining his position of mistrust, where he specifically mentions the Federal minister for health, Greg Hunt. And this Federal MP may not be able to participate in Federal Parliament, due to Federal Parliament rules, that could be modified again.
And the takeaway from this, is that "effectively this means that Daniel Andrews has passed laws that prevent an elected Federal member participating in Parliament."
But none of what I've just explained matters to certain people, because it's too much to read, or they will just disagree due to confirmation bias, or someone will throw in a quip that 'justifies' it being disregarded.
Because that sentence is short and looks powerful. While my multiple sentences are boring.
Which is part of why I support the requirements. Because in our current climate, it's seemingly impossible to combat misinformation/disinformation.
“Any direction or order from an employer to an employee must be lawful and reasonable in all the circumstances,” Mr Bornstein said.“In the context of a pandemic – and in particular Delta variant, which is highly infectious and dangerous – it is likely that courts will uphold employer orders compelling employees to be vaccinated.”On the flipside, Mr Bornstein said employers who didn’t ensure their workers were vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of that failure, people became sick or died.“Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace and a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that safety can result in very extensive legal problems,” he said. - Brisbane Times
I also think his comments are interesting. And they seem clear and reasonable.
Do you find any of it unusual or unreasonable?
You make a compelling point in support of the requirements.
Also, I feel like the comments you keep referring to, explained it.
On the flipside, Mr Bornstein said employers who didn’t ensure their workers were vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of that failure, people became sick or died.“Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace and a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that safety can result in very extensive legal problems,” he said. - Brisbane TimesSo in this case, the employer is following regulations, requirements, the law etc.
I'm struggling to envisage a scenario where the employer could be successfully sued, in your 'hypothetical'. Can you expand on it please?
Also, from the same article.
Associate Professor at the ANU College of Law, Dr Ron Levy
Dr Levy said a court faced with human rights claims, would balance that with the untold social upheaval, economic catastrophe and, most of all, widescale death and morbidity from COVID-19.“It is likely that the court will back the Victorian government, either in whole or in part,” Dr Levy said.“Courts particularly tend to defer to governments in times of emergency, like this one.” - Brisbane Times
From what I understand, if it all turns out to be an international conspiracy. The employer would still be protected, but the Government could then be sued.
How?
What's another scenario where you'd hold your position?
Harnesses, safety goggles?
It's possible that our views on these things are so opposite, that I'm completely missing important context, or what you might feel is base knowledge.