Less of a question, more of a rant by the end, but if anyone can justify why this is discrimination rather than a statistically coincidence, please do.
Client phoned, ranting a little homself. He runs a couple of care homes and most of his workers are vaccinated. No problem. Some arent, because they are scared of needles or have moral/personal/other objections. He reckons one or two are milking it because they think they might get an easy ride one way or another.
He is obviously carefully following developments in terms of compulsory vaccination for careworkers but is considering telling all staff to either get a jab or give him a bloody good reason why they havent. Anyone who cant fulfil either of these two fairly basic requests will find themselves unemployed. Once he has the list of 'non-compliers' he will assess their reasons and consider whether they have a future in a role which doesnt involve contact with inmates or other staff (if possible). I have naturally suggested he take legal/HR advice on the matter but personally i find his approach sensible.
There is a lot of debate over this, and Covid passports, and it is suggested by some that to implement any of these safety strategies "discriminates" against persons in any demographic where vaccination take-up is low. As a concept i find that riddiculous. If i ran a pub, care home, or any other business and i said I'd only admit (for example) men, then this would discriminate against women because there's not a lot they can do about their gender. If i saidf I'd only let people in if they owned a Ferrari, then that might discriminate against those who dont earn enough to buy a Ferrari. If, however, I said I'd only admit customers who had accepted their invitation for a free vaccination paid for by the NHS, and i am making this decision on safety grounds, then how on earth am i discriminating against anyone? OK so at the moment not everyone has had an invite, so there may be an indirect age disadvantage, but if we fast-farward a couple of months that will no longer apply.
The issue which seems to be raised by most of those who claim a discrimination angle to compulsory vaccination in care settings, or vaccine certification to alolow greater freedom, is that it disproportinally affects people from BAME backgrounds who, according to many news sources are "disproportionally vaccine-hesitant" and who also make up quite a large proportion of careworkers. Surely that's a statistical coincidence though? Implementing safefy measures doesnt discriminate against them because of their religion, ethnicity, or anything else. They are all equally able to access the vaccine, and they are all equally able to enjoy the freedoms attached to that. If they choose not to (whether that's because of a genuine needle phobia or tin-hat syndrome) then surely that's their choice and they accept the consequences..............