COVID vaccine passes. and SAFE ZONES Yay or Nay?

[hover11]

Vaccinate to operate is a law to most employers....anything to secure the bottom line

[sam1978]

It is not a law in Trinidad and Tobago.

[hover11]

I know that but what I am saying it is to them it is when they heard the words vaccinate to operate they believe if I vaccinate my employees then I can't be shut down anymore so my bottom line will not be affected

It is not a law in Trinidad and Tobago.

[MaxPower]

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

[elec2020]

Well look how bacchanal gonna jump off.

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

what law? Did vaccines become mandatory now? Steupse

[hover11]

I beg to disagree max...is Watson Duke a sufferer? Every body has their personal choice ...calling ppl sufferers because they make a particular choice just causes segregation and dissuades them further from even thinking to change their minds

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

[adnj]

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

[hover11]

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

[88sins]

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

That phrase "in accordance with" basically means in agreement with. An accord is an agreement. So they saying that their actions are in agreement with the laws of this country, when said laws do not currently exist. They are not implying anything there, what they are probably trying to do is spread a false sense of being within their legal rights to take that particular course of action, when they are not.
I suspect that they gonna regret that direction they are taking and that document soon enough. Any rookie attorney gonna make their name kicking their butt in the industrial court.
They would have been better off if they just terminated the employees and pay them their severance and not release that document. But they not trying to spend the money, at least not on severance packages. So they will end up spending much more in legal fees to fight a losing battle.
The only cost effective way out for them now would be to retract and nullify that document before it affects any of their workers. Short of that, they in for some problems in the not too distant future.

[adnj]

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

You can be in accordance with the laws that DO exist. The company:
- is privately held.
- has primary function with the public.
- works primarily at customer sites.
- believes that there is little ancillary activity at the company.
- has union buy-in or no union workforce.
- has determined future employees must be vaccine compliant.

Unless there is reason or legislation to compel a company to allow unvaccinated workers to work with or in close proximity to other workers or the public, while breaching public health guidelines and OSHA regulations, they are operating in accordance with existing law.

The only alternative may be that the unvaccinated employee be allowed to work from home in a function that may or may not exist.

The experts on that accommodation are the business owners themselves.

[hover11]

Based on the memo it clearly states in accordance with the laws of Trinidad and Tobago they are mandating that all employees vaccinate...which law in trinidad allows for mandatory vaccination? I just reading and understanding , I sure if an employee asks them the same question they will not be able to answer

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

You can be in accordance with the laws that DO exist. The company:
- is privately held.
- has primary function with the public.
- works primarily at customer sites.
- believes that there is little ancillary activity at the company.
- has union buy-in or no union workforce.
- has determined future employees must be vaccine compliant.

Unless there is reason or legislation to compel a company to allow unvaccinated workers to work with or in close proximity to other workers or the public, while breaching public health guidelines and OSHA regulations, the are operating in accordance with existing law.

The only alternative may be that the unvaccinated employee be allowed to work from home in a function that may or may not exist.

The experts on that accommodation is the business owners themselves.

[elec2020]

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

I don't understand how else you can interpret "in accordance with the laws of Trinidad and Tobago". It implies that you are stating that the policy you implementing follow the laws of T&T. But what law is there that makes these vaccines mandatory? LOL

[elec2020]

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

That phrase "in accordance with" basically means in agreement with. An accord is an agreement. So they saying that their actions are in agreement with the laws of this country, when said laws do not currently exist. They are not implying anything there, what they are probably trying to do is spread a false sense of being within their legal rights to take that particular course of action, when they are not.
I suspect that they gonna regret that direction they are taking and that document soon enough. Any rookie attorney gonna make their name kicking their butt in the industrial court.
They would have been better off if they just terminated the employees and pay them their severance and not release that document. But they not trying to spend the money, at least not on severance packages. So they will end up spending much more in legal fees to fight a losing battle.
The only cost effective way out for them now would be to retract and nullify that document before it affects any of their workers. Short of that, they in for some problems in the not too distant future.

Damn right. The legal burden will fall on the company to show what law they are using to facilitate this decision. Again its another company with minimum wage employees that pushing this as they know their workers don't know about their rights nor have the resolve to push through with a legal case. Still waiting to see one of the employers of unionized staff circulate a mandatory vaccination memo.

[De Dragon]

I beg to disagree max...is Watson Duke a sufferer? Every body has their personal choice ...calling ppl sufferers because they make a particular choice just causes segregation and dissuades them further from even thinking to change their minds

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

Yet here you are railing against businesses for mandating their employees be vaccinated.
What do you think a business exists for? To make jobs for people?
If the business, like many have, close down, what is the fate of the employees then?
Too many people want to be appear to be unique and buck the trend, when from all available scientific evidence, the vaccines benefits outweigh the risks, and yes, you personal choice remains, but you have to respect the rights of not only businesses, but anyone who chooses not to deal with unvaccinated.

[hover11]

Yes but if you are a business be honest and do the right thing don't create an agenda , mandatory vaccination policy and hide behind a law that the government of the land has not even enacted

I beg to disagree max...is Watson Duke a sufferer? Every body has their personal choice ...calling ppl sufferers because they make a particular choice just causes segregation and dissuades them further from even thinking to change their minds

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

Yet here you are railing against businesses for mandating their employees be vaccinated.
What do you think a business exists for? To make jobs for people?
If the business, like many have, close down, what is the fate of the employees then?
Too many people want to be appear to be unique and buck the trend, when from all available scientific evidence, the vaccines benefits outweigh the risks, and yes, you personal choice remains, but you have to respect the rights of not only businesses, but anyone who chooses not to deal with unvaccinated.

[De Dragon]

Yes but if you are a business be honest and do the right thing don't create an agenda , mandatory vaccination policy and hide behind a law that the government of the land has not even enacted

I beg to disagree max...is Watson Duke a sufferer? Every body has their personal choice ...calling ppl sufferers because they make a particular choice just causes segregation and dissuades them further from even thinking to change their minds

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

Yet here you are railing against businesses for mandating their employees be vaccinated.
What do you think a business exists for? To make jobs for people?
If the business, like many have, close down, what is the fate of the employees then?
Too many people want to be appear to be unique and buck the trend, when from all available scientific evidence, the vaccines benefits outweigh the risks, and yes, you personal choice remains, but you have to respect the rights of not only businesses, but anyone who chooses not to deal with unvaccinated.

So the hundreds that closed down and put thousands on the breadline are what?
A business owner has the right to choose who he wants in his place, mingling with his employees and customers. If you're so outraged at their lack of honesty, what is the logical choice?
Gums will bump, but KFC, Starbucks, Pizza Hut hadda consume, right?

[hover11]

Like I told Duane yesterday there are businesses in NY that fully let known to the general public that they don't need unvaccinated in their business place so they will not serve them, I have no problem with that and actually I respected them for that , shows they have belly. Not one employer in trinidad could do that even though they thinking it LOL

Yes but if you are a business be honest and do the right thing don't create an agenda , mandatory vaccination policy and hide behind a law that the government of the land has not even enacted

I beg to disagree max...is Watson Duke a sufferer? Every body has their personal choice ...calling ppl sufferers because they make a particular choice just causes segregation and dissuades them further from even thinking to change their minds

Many people are not taking the vaccine simply because they are seeking attention.

I wonder if its mostly sufferers?

Yet here you are railing against businesses for mandating their employees be vaccinated.
What do you think a business exists for? To make jobs for people?
If the business, like many have, close down, what is the fate of the employees then?
Too many people want to be appear to be unique and buck the trend, when from all available scientific evidence, the vaccines benefits outweigh the risks, and yes, you personal choice remains, but you have to respect the rights of not only businesses, but anyone who chooses not to deal with unvaccinated.

So the hundreds that closed down and put thousands on the breadline are what?
A business owner has the right to choose who he wants in his place, mingling with his employees and customers. If you're so outraged at their lack of honesty, what is the logical choice?
Gums will bump, but KFC, Starbucks, Pizza Hut hadda consume, right?

[sam1978]

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

You can be in accordance with the laws that DO exist. The company:
- is privately held.
- has primary function with the public.
- works primarily at customer sites.
- believes that there is little ancillary activity at the company.
- has union buy-in or no union workforce.
- has determined future employees must be vaccine compliant.

Unless there is reason or legislation to compel a company to allow unvaccinated workers to work with or in close proximity to other workers or the public, while breaching public health guidelines and OSHA regulations, they are operating in accordance with existing law.

The only alternative may be that the unvaccinated employee be allowed to work from home in a function that may or may not exist.

The experts on that accommodation are the business owners themselves.

Strange. You don’t usually talk sheit.

[Dohplaydat]

Businesses need to come together and mandate all employees get vaccinated unless they have medical reasons as to why they cannot.

When vaccination rates reach close to 50% they'll stop business with unvaccinated customers as well. I can't wait.

[hover11]

Why wait till then though bring it on now

Businesses need to come together and mandate all employees get vaccinated unless they have medical reasons as to why they cannot.

When vaccination rates reach close to 50% they'll stop business with unvaccinated customers as well. I can't wait.

[elec2020]

^ the head of PSA done say he ready to sue. My union head hasn't said anything yet but I am sure he will not turn down free money. So let them mandate it. Industrial Court will have cases for days.

[hover11]

Industrial court always favors the employee so let them try anything

^ the head of PSA done say he ready to sue. My union head hasn't said anything yet but I am sure he will not turn down free money. So let them mandate it. Industrial Court will have cases for days.

[elec2020]

^ I waiting on my employer to implement that vaccine mandate and let go staff. Let me sue... Get my big payday and buss out of t&t

[adnj]

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

You can be in accordance with the laws that DO exist. The company:
- is privately held.
- has primary function with the public.
- works primarily at customer sites.
- believes that there is little ancillary activity at the company.
- has union buy-in or no union workforce.
- has determined future employees must be vaccine compliant.

Unless there is reason or legislation to compel a company to allow unvaccinated workers to work with or in close proximity to other workers or the public, while breaching public health guidelines and OSHA regulations, they are operating in accordance with existing law.

The only alternative may be that the unvaccinated employee be allowed to work from home in a function that may or may not exist.

The experts on that accommodation are the business owners themselves.

Strange. You don’t usually talk sheit.

There is no legislation or precedent that says that you cannot put the health of the majority of employees above the health of others.

You're assuming involuntary separation when the letter clearly states that the employee "will be subject to no-pay leave until such time that the vaccination is obtained."

[hover11]

Unpaid leave is taken by the employee you the employer cannot without reasonable grounds send me on unpaid leave

How can you be in accordance with a law that doesn't exist please enlighten me

…And they saying according to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago eh!

It states, "in accordance with."

A subtle difference that implies conformity. If it cannot be made then the tort should surface.

You can be in accordance with the laws that DO exist. The company:
- is privately held.
- has primary function with the public.
- works primarily at customer sites.
- believes that there is little ancillary activity at the company.
- has union buy-in or no union workforce.
- has determined future employees must be vaccine compliant.

Unless there is reason or legislation to compel a company to allow unvaccinated workers to work with or in close proximity to other workers or the public, while breaching public health guidelines and OSHA regulations, they are operating in accordance with existing law.

The only alternative may be that the unvaccinated employee be allowed to work from home in a function that may or may not exist.

The experts on that accommodation are the business owners themselves.

Strange. You don’t usually talk sheit.

There is no legislation or precedent that says that you cannot put the health of the majority of employees above the health of others.

You're assuming involuntary separation when the letter clearly states that the employee will take unpaid leave as a consequence of their choice not to vaccinate.

[redmanjp]

As per OSHA the employer has a right and a duty to ensure a safe workplace. so requiring masks and even PCR tests can be done. However mandating a medical procedure which is outside the terms and conditions of employment is a bit tricky. New hires yes you can put that in their contract but existing employees you might be limited to PCR testing so most employers can do is give them a choice between vaccination and testing.

[hover11]

That's essentially all they can do you cannot change the the terms and conditions of employment unilaterally

As per OSHA the employer has a right and a duty to ensure a safe workplace. so requiring masks and even PCR tests can be done. However mandating a medical procedure which is outside the terms and conditions of employment is a bit tricky. New hires yes you can put that in their contract but existing employees you might be limited to PCR testing so most employers can do is give them a choice between vaccination and testing.

[adnj]

That's essentially all they can do you cannot change the the terms and conditions of employment unilaterally

As per OSHA the employer has a right and a duty to ensure a safe workplace. so requiring masks and even PCR tests can be done. However mandating a medical procedure which is outside the terms and conditions of employment is a bit tricky. New hires yes you can put that in their contract but existing employees you might be limited to PCR testing so most employers can do is give them a choice between vaccination and testing.

If the letter is genuine, they just did.

Now, whosoever decides to create the precedent makes a decision and files the case for trial. In the absence of legislation, common law nations rely on precedent. That's just the way it works.

[hover11]

The industrial court will seek redress hope these employers ready to give pay outs

That's essentially all they can do you cannot change the the terms and conditions of employment unilaterally

As per OSHA the employer has a right and a duty to ensure a safe workplace. so requiring masks and even PCR tests can be done. However mandating a medical procedure which is outside the terms and conditions of employment is a bit tricky. New hires yes you can put that in their contract but existing employees you might be limited to PCR testing so most employers can do is give them a choice between vaccination and testing.

If the letter is genuine, they just did.

Now, whosoever decides to create the precedent makes a decision and files the case for trial. In the absence of legislation, common law nations rely on precedent. That's just the way it works.

[88sins]

Businesses need to come together and mandate all employees get vaccinated unless they have medical reasons as to why they cannot.

When vaccination rates reach close to 50% they'll stop business with unvaccinated customers as well. I can't wait.

Yes, 100% of surviving businesses vying for 50% of available customers that have in recent times developed very frugal spending habits. That go work real good. Everybody revenue drops by 40-60%, unvaccinated people with money can't go anywhere or buy anything and with that all problems solved ent? That's what you want to see ent?




So tell us, besides manure, dung, kaka and horseshit, what other nuggets that you consider as valueable as gold do you keep in that hollow vault between your ears?