Thereisalight.. Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: This. And society did not break down. We are the most infected country on earth, we NEED the most draconian legislation on earth, and we're just not getting it. I’m sure the Facebook Maws and those who exist to play video games or watch Netflix will manage fine with only going out their house once a week, that’s their usual life anyway. I’m afraid that for those suffering poor mental health getting outside and going a walk really is a lifesaver. Taking that away would be barbaric 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 A year ago, a lot of epidemiologists were writing papers about the risks and widespread panic and civil unrest was widely expected. One paper, I'll need to look up who wrote it, predicted that lockdowns wouldn't work because the rioting that would inevitably result would cause more cases than the lockdown would prevent. In reality we had a lockdown that few people thought possible in January, for several months, with basically zero serious unrest. It's fucking shit that they might take away support bubbles for single people, those living alone, etc but it won't induce anarchy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 50 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Again that's juvenile shite that only a fanny would come out with. All him and me want is a basic level of protection that is offered to all in society. So your workplace isn't safe for you just now, so you're off, why isn't he? His workplace was deemed not safe in March because of the amount of infections, now with infections higher apparently its safe? And its too much to ask our government at least mandates people have to treat his workplace like a fucking supermarket and wear a mask? You're an arsepiece mate. This is bread and butter Occupational Health. Has he spoken to his line manager for a referral? His factory's OHS will do a risk assessment and decide what if any adjustments need to be made. Same goes for your mother. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, 101 said: We currently exist in a structure that employers look at the legislation and decide the appropriate level or response I don't see once the structure has been updated why we revert to spoon feed business. The public aren't used to this level of restriction therefore prescriptive measures are better for them Business know their setting better than anyone else and at the end of the day they will carry the can for out breaks in their work place. The public of course will be expected to push the boundaries to the limit but for a business to do the same and risk closure seems reckless in the extreme. This is complete nonsense. A business is not going to 'carry the can' at all for a pandemic disease outbreak affecting its workers. How much do you think that Tesco are going to be fined for the employees who have died of Covid up and down the country? Zero, because sufficient liability will never be determined. This is not a standard unsafe work environment then in which fault will clearly come back to the employer if things aren't set out correctly. This is a situation in which an employer's interpretation of Covid-secure will be bent towards what is most convenient/cheapest for them to implement while being within the vague area of compliance. Not necessarily because the company is malevolent but because the incentives are not lined up in the same way as before. 24 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: The HASAWA has placed the responsibility on both employer and employee to manage significantly more dangerous working conditions than covid for decades though. Having been used to working under that act, why cant employers be reasonably expected to do what is neccessary, employees expected to follow said guidance, and the HSE to be contacted in the event of a failure to do so? Like 101 said, it's a bit different for employers. For me that can reasonably be expected to be told what constitutes "covid secure" and act to make that happen. For the reasons outlined above, the HASAWA is completely redundant in the case of an airborne disease being transmitted in the community and potentially in a workplace environment as well. It wasn't designed to deal with this scenario and employers know that liability will never fall on them (and rightly so). What you need instead is a set of additional prescriptive measures that companies are obliged to enforce until the public health emergency is over. 'Leaving it to employers who know their workplace and tell the union rep about breaches' is nowhere near sufficient. Edited January 11, 2021 by vikingTON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 I demand to know what Joanna Cherry's position is on this issue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philpy Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Too much dithering by the SG. None of this "we might have to do that, we might have to do this" pish. FFS if they feel tighter restrictions are better, then just get fucking on with it so people know what the f**k is happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Again that's nonsense mate, not one of us alive has ever seen significantly more dangerous working conditions than Covid. Never before could a colleague walking five feet away from you kill you. That's just drivel. Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bernardblack Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 A year ago, a lot of epidemiologists were writing papers about the risks and widespread panic and civil unrest was widely expected. One paper, I'll need to look up who wrote it, predicted that lockdowns wouldn't work because the rioting that would inevitably result would cause more cases than the lockdown would prevent. In reality we had a lockdown that few people thought possible in January, for several months, with basically zero serious unrest. It's fucking shit that they might take away support bubbles for single people, those living alone, etc but it won't induce anarchy.I read a similar paper that predicted this entire scenario that is playing out. Lockdown....ease of restriction...spike in cases...lockdown with nobody caring/fed up of the rules...huge spike etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Bairnardo said: Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. What if I work at height, in a confined space with radioactive material? Should I wear a mask or first report it to the HSE? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: This is bread and butter Occupational Health. Has he spoken to his line manager for a referral? His factory's OHS will do a risk assessment and decide what if any adjustments need to be made. Same goes for your mother. They have done these things, and are complying with guidelines, but it still isn't safe, or even as safe as they can make it. My mum works in respite care, its just to give the parents some respite. Its not life saving. There is no reason that should be happening at all just now as its impossible to make it safe. You can't do that job and social distance. Government recognised this in March and shut it down, now its open with infections higher than March. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1885 Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Tbh mate I don't care. I have had mental health problems too so I sympathise, but compared to people dying alone in a hospital bed someone's mental health is of zero importance.Cant agree with that, sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. Really, can you point out for us which year saw 80 thousand people fall to their deaths at work? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Again, you're just blindly defending something to oppose me. We know its more transmissable now than it was in March. We know it thrives in cold, damp conditions and we know this is January. What's happened is an economic decision has been taken that its okay for some people to die. So the govt now values my parents lives less than it did in March, and less than yours or most of society. That isn't fair. I'm not defending the decision not to mandate masks. I think that's probably quite a sensible thing to do. I'm trying to explain that it's not a simple binary choice where it's 100% safe and nothing else or it's closed. Economics isn't necessarily about enriching capitalists, it is about availability and distribution of resources, including to make sure people can keep a roof over their heads etc. It's perfectly fine in my view to make a decision based on economics. That doesn't mean it is the right decision or made well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, coprolite said: I'm not defending the decision not to mandate masks. I think that's probably quite a sensible thing to do. I'm trying to explain that it's not a simple binary choice where it's 100% safe and nothing else or it's closed. Economics isn't necessarily about enriching capitalists, it is about availability and distribution of resources, including to make sure people can keep a roof over their heads etc. It's perfectly fine in my view to make a decision based on economics. That doesn't mean it is the right decision or made well. Again that argument doesn't stand up when a furlough scheme is available. Nobody would lose their house or their income. The people who own the company would make less money for a while is all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 Celtic have f*cked it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, Rob1885 said: 6 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Tbh mate I don't care. I have had mental health problems too so I sympathise, but compared to people dying alone in a hospital bed someone's mental health is of zero importance. Cant agree with that, sorry. Fair enough, I'm sure you would when it was you or one of your loved ones god forbid. We prioritise things like this, and someone dying next week is of much more importance than someone's mental health deteriorating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fifer Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said: All we need now is for Supras to be freed and directed to this thread. Whatever happened to him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 11 minutes ago, virginton said: This is complete nonsense. A business is not going to 'carry the can' at all for a pandemic disease outbreak affecting its workers. How much do you think that Tesco are going to be fined for the employees who have died of Covid up and down the country? Zero, because sufficient liability will never be determined. This is not a standard unsafe work environment then in which fault will clearly come back to the employer if things aren't set out correctly. This is a situation in which an employer's interpretation of Covid-secure will be bent towards what is most convenient/cheapest for them to achieve within the vague area of compliance. Not necessarily because the company is malevolent but because the incentives are not lined up in the same way as before. For the reasons outlined above, the HASAWA is completely redundant in the case of an airborne disease being transmitted in the community and potentially in a workplace environment as well. It wasn't designed to deal with this scenario and employers know that liability will never fall on them (and rightly so). What you need instead is a set of additional prescriptive measures that companies are obliged to enforce until the public health emergency is over. 'Leaving it to employers who know their workplace and tell the union rep about breaches' is nowhere near sufficient. I think theres an argument around it though that may explain why employers are being treated differently to the general public, in that they are already expected to deal with hazardous work safely without prescriptive legislation telling them how to do so. Certainly right that this is all different, and not like anything we have seen before so fair enough questioning whether existing legislation is adequate. Suppose it really depends what conditions have been placed on being covid secure. What CYG is forgetting in his fantasy scenario though is that the government have already told the shielding population not to go to work. So either his parents arent actually as vulnerable as he is making out, or they need to go and speak to their doctors re why they need to be further protected. Again though, all of that is obviously totally made up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Was half expecting her to put a ban on all football there when she was talking about Celtic and the special privileges that football has just now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, virginton said: This is complete nonsense. A business is not going to 'carry the can' at all for a pandemic disease outbreak affecting its workers. How much do you think that Tesco are going to be fined for the employees who have died of Covid up and down the country? Zero, because sufficient liability will never be determined. This is not a standard unsafe work environment then in which fault will clearly come back to the employer if things aren't set out correctly. This is a situation in which an employer's interpretation of Covid-secure will be bent towards what is most convenient/cheapest for them to implement while being within the vague area of compliance. Not necessarily because the company is malevolent but because the incentives are not lined up in the same way as before. I don't mean criminal or civil proceedings, of course employment lawyers may be willing to look at this later or depending on the breach. However the businesses would have to close and disrupt their business should there be an outbreak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.