Some companies to reduce sick pay

[Saga Lout]

Originally Posted by solarsailor

This story seems to have been misunderstood judging by the comments on this thread.

IKEA has not cut sick pay for the unvaccinated who self-isolate after contracting covid, but rather for those who've been in close contact with someone who DOES have covid.

This is because vaccinated people coming into close contact with a person who has covid do not need to self-isolate, whereas if you're unvaccinated you do have to self-isolate.

Therefore if you're unvaccinated and have close contact with a covid sufferer you'll be off work for no reason other than that you couldn't be bothered/didn't want to get vaccinated - not because you're ill.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the decision, but I can see IKEA's point of view. That being, why should they pay full wages to staff who are off work when they needn't be if they'd had the vaccine?

Read what you've written, the rules have been changed to fit the vaccine narrative and to coerce people into getting jabbed. Why should an unvaccinated person have to isolate and a vaccinated person not when both can spread the same illness, is it just a tactic by government to further discriminate against those that don't get the jabs, it would seem so. I don't care what rules are bent and twisted in favour of the jabbed, this is blatant discrimination against a section of society that are being made into lesser members of society for exercising personal choice. As you say, you must isolate not because you're ill, it's because you must be punished for non compliance. If both vaccinated and unvaccinated can catch and spread the illness, who poses a risk to anyone? I'll give you the answer, the person who poses the risk is the person that's infected, no-one else poses a risk to anyone else and the vaccines only protect the person that takes them. As I said, people have lost their minds over this and a lot of the jabbed believe that an unjabbed person is a major risk to be near, that is insanity and anyone that thinks that way needs to start banging their head into a wall until something rational shakes loose. I'm beyond caring about what the jabbed think, most of them have become mentally ill because of this virus.

[Saga Lout]

Originally Posted by macafee2

You care about a fair society, what a laughable comment. How on earth does you, infected with covid and mixing with other unjabbed people and passing the infection on, reflect fairness to them? Even putting them at risk is unfair. That is like me saying, Ikea employees know the risk that if they don't get jabbed and have to isolate they will be on reduced sick pay, that is ok because they know the risk. I've already said I think Ikea are wrong. Unjabbed people do indeed know the risk but I doubt they expect or perhaps they know people have an "I don't care about others" attitude and so do expect someone knowing they have covid to mix with them.

If you are unjabbed, do you expect someone, knowing they have covid to mix with you or stay away from you? How would you feel if you ended up in hospital because someone, knowing they had covid mixed with you and passed on the infection to you? Jabbed or unjabbed, I'd be a bit "cheesed" off if that was done to me.

You and others have the right to remain unjabbed, you do not have the right to pass covid on to others and neither do you have the right to put them at risk of catching it.

Any reason you did not not answer the question about Ikea being put to trouble?

macafee2

This is a typical example of the mindset being adopted by many, you get the jabs and think you've done something good for society but you didn't, what you did was self preservation of the highest order and is the same reason you'll have ten jabs. The unjabbed made their choice for their lives and that's OK for them as they pose no more risk to anyone than the jabbed, the only people the unjabbed pose a risk to are the governments with their non compliance. As you say, I, and others have the right to remain unjabbed, I, and them don't have the right to pass on covid because I'm not jabbed. I'd say that no-one knowingly infectious has the right to spread it but bear this in mind, if people are being denied the rights to be treated as equals, the law goes out of the window. I've said it before, only the infected can spread it and that could be anyone. The jabbed mentality is destroying society as we knew it, people that can barely walk attempting to run away from people that aren't jabbed, people screaming `go away` in fear because someone near them isn't jabbed. The virus or `Whu flu` as I call it has dome more damage than two world wars.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Saga Lout

Read what you've written, the rules have been changed to fit the vaccine narrative and to coerce people into getting jabbed. Why should an unvaccinated person have to isolate and a vaccinated person not when both can spread the same illness, is it just a tactic by government to further discriminate against those that don't get the jabs, it would seem so. I don't care what rules are bent and twisted in favour of the jabbed, this is blatant discrimination against a section of society that are being made into lesser members of society for exercising personal choice. As you say, you must isolate not because you're ill, it's because you must be punished for non compliance. If both vaccinated and unvaccinated can catch and spread the illness, who poses a risk to anyone? I'll give you the answer, the person who poses the risk is the person that's infected, no-one else poses a risk to anyone else and the vaccines only protect the person that takes them. As I said, people have lost their minds over this and a lot of the jabbed believe that an unjabbed person is a major risk to be near, that is insanity and anyone that thinks that way needs to start banging their head into a wall until something rational shakes loose. I'm beyond caring about what the jabbed think, most of them have become mentally ill because of this virus.

Yet again you fail to answer a question "why should they pay full wages to staff who are off work when they needn't be if they'd had the vaccine?" Is the answer is a no win for you so you don't answer, perhaps the other questions are the same too? You say "you are beyond caring about what the jabbed think", if you still care about what the unjabbed think, then are you discriminating?
You seem quite angry

macafee2

[trikey]

Apparently Next have done the same as Ikea now, soon they will have us sitting in our own waiting rooms and standing up on buses to give up our seats to the vaccinated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saga Lout]

Originally Posted by macafee2

Yet again you fail to answer a question "why should they pay full wages to staff who are off work when they needn't be if they'd had the vaccine?" Is the answer is a no win for you so you don't answer, perhaps the other questions are the same too? You say "you are beyond caring about what the jabbed think", if you still care about what the unjabbed think, then are you discriminating?
You seem quite angry

macafee2

They should pay the same to all, not hide behind dubious rules that force staff without the jabs to do something the jabbed don't have to, if you have the vaccine jab you are treated better than if you don't, that is discrimination that isn't needed as the jabbed that have been exposed to the virus pose the same risks to others. The messaging is quite clear, if you don't get the jabs we will punish you until you do, I know what the unjabbed think, they think they're being treated as second class citizens for daring to express personal choices, that's their rights, so because it can't be forced upon people the state and these companies move the goalposts. The basic answer is that if anyone doesn't need to isolate after being exposed to the virus, then no-one needs to isolate other than as a form of punishment dictated by the government. It'll end up in the courts and the discrimination will be declared to have been illegal no matter what direction it came from.

[torque2me]

Originally Posted by solarsailor

This story seems to have been misunderstood judging by the comments on this thread.

IKEA has not cut sick pay for the unvaccinated who self-isolate after contracting covid, but rather for those who've been in close contact with someone who DOES have covid.

This is because vaccinated people coming into close contact with a person who has covid do not need to self-isolate, whereas if you're unvaccinated you do have to self-isolate.

Therefore if you're unvaccinated and have close contact with a covid sufferer you'll be off work for no reason other than that you couldn't be bothered/didn't want to get vaccinated - not because you're ill.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the decision, but I can see IKEA's point of view. That being, why should they pay full wages to staff who are off work when they needn't be if they'd had the vaccine?

Yeah, but I still think the logic is incorrect.

Vaccinated - less likely to die or need hospitalisation.
Still able to harbour and transmit a viral load.
Need 6 monthly "top-ups"
Still may need to take "sick" leave.

Unvaccinated - More likely to die or need hospitalisation.
Still able to harbour and transmit a viral load.
Probably need to take "sick" leave and recuperation time.

The vaccinated can still transmit to another vaccinated person and cause either the host or the receptor (or both) to become ill.

I cannot really see why we are causing divisions in society over such small differences but I suspect it has to do with money ("Protect the NHS" and thus keep costs within reasonable bounds).

It's all bonkers! Kev

[Avulon]

Originally Posted by Saga Lout

It's not good, Ikea lost any further business from me and like Morrison's last week I won't spend another penny in their stores. It will end up in the courts for sure.
An unvaccinated person goes to work, he/she catches the virus from a vaccinated person and has to isolate, the vaccinated person also has to isolate but gets full pay whilst the unvaccinated person doesn't, it stinks and is very likely in breach of many laws.
If that was me in that position, I'd carry on going to work and keep my mouth shut.

Absolutely. except for the last bit, I'd just tell work I've got the flu/a migraine/ a tummy bug in that situation and stay home anyway.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Avulon

Absolutely. except for the last bit, I'd just tell work I've got the flu/a migraine/ a tummy bug in that situation and stay home anyway.

A simple solution, although dishonest, I would not have an issue with that.

macafee2

[wraymond]

They seem to think they can at a whim just cancel an employment contract and reinvent another new and less advantageous one. I wonder if they have bothered to discuss this with their employees at any stage.

If some employees have not resigned but are being victimised with threats then there will bound to be legal challenges. Then, if no national changes are made by law, there will be much trouble. Again, thin end of wedge. There are so many parallels with earlier 'regimes' this is an alarming development.

I have to say I would not lie about my condition - it would seem that to follow that route might lead to a demand for an appropriate medical decision by a doctor - at a cost to the employee. Or dismissal. Very deep waters leading to 'unemployable'.

[SCP440]

The latest change of you only have to isolate for 5 days is only for the vaccinated, those unvaccinated still have to isolate for the full term.