COVID-19: Bonfire of the Carers.

 Apparently in November, care staff that refuse to have the covid vaccine will be sacked. It will be a requirement for health and care workers to be double-jabbed in order to continue working.

In a flagrant abuse of worker's rights, the NHS and the government are mandating workers be forced into medical procedures they don't want or need.

It will be interesting what lawsuits come out of this. I know the vaccine providers are indemnified against any action by the government, but are the employers? For instance if an employee takes the vaccine under protest in order to keep their job and suffer side effects and dies. Are  the employer liable? Because had the employee been left alone they would not be dead. Someone has to be accountable and liable in the event something that an employee is forced to do has a negative impact on them.

Also are employers liable for breach of contract, given that contracts do not have a clause in them regarding mandatory medical procedures.

This is yet another ill-thought-out plan by the government, without any thought for the repercussions.

By the governments own admission, the vaccine doesn't stop you getting covid, nor does it stop you passing it on. It reduces the transmissibility somewhat, but doesn't stop it completely. 

The only reason for taking the vaccine is to reduce the effects if you get it yourself. 

Also, by now all the residents of care homes, being in at-risk groups should have had their own vaccinations. So where exactly is the risk from having an un-jabbed worker in a care setting? The only risk is to the worker themselves because they have a higher risk of dying if they catch covid.

What it all boils down to is once again the government are willing to throw the care sector onto the bonfire and let it burn. Workers will just leave, given you can earn more at a supermarket and there's no mandatory vaccination required there. I look forward to the government apologising for the care sector's inability to provide adequate care due to lack of staff. Also for the millions of pounds of compensation that will have to be paid out by employers at tribunals.

I do wonder where the Labour party stands on the abuse of worker's rights. The same for the unions. Why are they not up in arms regarding forcing workers into having a medical procedure in order to keep their job? Especially when it's not in any contract of employment. It's also not in any Health and Safety legislation. So exactly under what legislation are employers able to mandate this, how will they immunise themselves from claims for unfair dismissal?

But where will it stop? If the gate is opened, what's to stop employers demanding cosmetic surgery for instance? Mandatory boob jobs for barmaids? Forced facelifts for the over-50s? Webbed feet and hands for divers? I may sound facetious, but just where is the line going to be drawn? The care sector is not the military, and I understand in the military certain injections and vaccinations are necessary in order to keep the solider fighting fit.

But care workers have not signed up to be used any way the employer seems fit. They are not chattels, they are not serfs.  

But that's how the government appears to be treating them and the wider population.

One of the things I would advise any care employee that is being forced down this route to request in writing a change to their contract of employment, specifically with a clause that makes the employer liable for compensation if the employee suffers any ill-effects from the vaccination forced on the employee at their request. The compensation should for instance be similar to a life-assurance policy, in order to adequately compensate the carer's family should the worst happen. Also the care worker should demand monetary compensation for going through the procedure against their will. Pick the figure you are comfortable with and see if your employer is willing to pay it. Any refusal to agree these new terms and the termination of the employee in breach of contract of employment will result in legal action. 

After all, it's your body and you should be compensated. Just as if you had an accident at work. 

Immigration.

 We now have close to 120,000 illegal immigrants in the UK just from the channel dinghy crossings alone. These people are being housed in 4-star hotels across the country at huge cost.

Over the past week have now added to that figure by "repatriating" over 10,000 "refugees" from Afghanistan. We've also opened the doors to hundreds of thousands of people from Hong Kong.

Apart from the illegal channel crossers, in general I have no qualms about the people coming in from Afghanistan and Hong Kong. We have some moral obligation towards them. In Afghanistan we went in with size 10 hobnails and failed to sort out their country. In Hong Kong we gave them away to the authoritarian Chinese government lock, stock and barrel. 

But, and the is a big but.... where are all these people going to go? We are already in the midst of a housing crisis. We have hundreds of thousands of people homeless on the streets, we have people unable to afford rent on a single wage, let alone buy a property and pay a mortgage.

So where exactly do we put these new immigrants these new citizens of the UK? Where do we house them? How do we house them?

We don't have the housing to place them, we don't have the infrastructure to support the new houses that need to be built, we just don't have the facilities to keep the door open for ever, accepting everyone into the country.

Yet we spend billions on HS2. 

I firmly believe that the country's priorities are fucked up. First an foremost should be providing basic facilities to people at a cost they can afford. We need more houses and if necessary, legislation should be put forward to ease the planning burden and sad to say, encroach on the green belt. 

It's without a hint of self-awareness that the people that shout loudest about accepting immigrants into the country are usually the ones that shout loudest against new housing developments and roads. Well, you can't have it both ways. You want to allow all and sundry to come in, then your precious green belt is going to have to go. Your fault, no on else's. 

Think that virtue-signalling and being virtuous won't have an effect on your middle-class life? Think again. 

Want to keep your precious greenery? Want to preserve your idyllic towns an villages? Don't want them to be swallowed up by massive conurbations? 

Don't want your house price to fall as more and more houses are being built? Enjoying the increased value of your house? Don't want to experience negative equity?

Then start to reject the open-door immigration policies. Because at some point, you will have to pay the piper for your virtue.

I blogged a few years ago that the housing crisis can only be solved by classing it as a national emergency and giving national government special powers in order to solve it. Planning objections need to be swept away and the houses need to be built now.

Being a national project, we need to identify decent sized accommodation, not the poxy shoeboxes that developers cram into the smallest plots in order to maximise profit. The houses need to be built and sold with a small profit. The difference between material costs and the actual value of a house is huge. 

By contracting the building of houses and selling them at a small margin over the material cost brings in revenue for the government and provides affordable housing.

At some point one of the major parties need to run with this policy. Because if one of the minor parties like UKIP (Change that bloody name!) or Nigel Farage's ex-party Reform run with this, they could well collect a huge number of votes from the low-paid working class. 

Add a dab of virtue by housing the homeless and immigrants then it might also bring the middle-classes on board too. After all if they are so virtuous they want to save everyone, then surely a drop in house values is a small price to pay eh? 

Or is all that virtue available just so long as it doesn't affect them?

I'd also add in a dash of Tax reclamation from the Mega-corporations like Google, PayPal and the like to pay for it. Change the rules so they can't pay tax offshore. If they resist then they're denying homes for the homeless and immigrants, the selfish bastards.