Morrisons cuts sick pay for unjabbed

chunkylover53 said:
It’s an interesting one

1) conceptually if someone is increasing their (1) risk of being ill, whilst making their colleagues (2) and customers (3) ill, should they not see a downside?
2) as has already been pointed out, it will likely be self defeating, having no impact on 1, but increasing cases in 2 and 3
Click to expand...
Why won't they accept a test result ?
 


Just reading the article it doesn't say that they're not paying sick pay for people who have Covid, they're not paying sick pay to those who need to self isolate. It's a big difference.

If you live with someone who has Covid if your fully vaccinated you don't need to self isolate. If your not vaccinated then you still do. Imo they shouldn't be getting sick pay either as your not sick and are restricting yourself. Blame the government not Morrison's but imo you shouldn't be entitled to it either. It's same you have to isolate if track and trace tell you.

It's morally wrong that if you live with someone with Covid and you don't have the vaccine you get to have paid days off work but if you do then your expected to work.

www.gov.uk

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
Where I work they have just amended the sick scheme where if you are told to isolate you will get full pay and it will not tally up on your sick pay entitlement. No mention if you are jabbed or not.
 
Brian Griffin said:
Not me - none of the above :cool:
Click to expand...
We all aspire to be somewhere near your level tbf :cool:
consettsafc said:
Where I work they have just amended the sick scheme where if you are told to isolate you will get full pay and it will not tally up on your sick pay entitlement. No mention if you are jabbed or not.
Click to expand...
An excellent employer who values their employees and genuinely cares about the health of the rest of the nation.

Shithouses like morrisons not paying people who need to self isolate will simply mean more people will not self isolate. Or they will go and work for a reputable employer where they are valued for what they are worth.
 
Last edited:
tysonstorm said:
Quite happy to keep selling alcohol to alcoholics though, cigarettes to smokers and junk, high sugary foods to kids.

Nice one Morrisons.

Can't have the unjabbed working in their stores but quite happy to contribute to giving people addictions, liver damage, cancer and diabetes.
Click to expand...

Just been to Tesco. Begging bucket in the bit where you pack. For diabetes. The shop is full of stuff that gives you it.
 
Nowt surprises me with Morrison’s it’s a shit hole.
However the title is misleading as it’s because people are not fully jabbed they need to isolate potentially more than double jabbed people.
So playing devil’s advocate why should people not double jabbed be entitled to more sickness days or isolation days than people jabbed?

id be pissed off if a fellow worker was off several times a year due to potentially being in contact with a positive person and I’m getting grief for being absent a couple of days for the shits.

believe Amazon don’t allow or pay sickness pay to number of excess absence cases in the same month due to isolation or Covid issues.
 
No sympathy personally, unless they have a medical exemption from the jab. No reason not to get it and they’re putting themselves, colleagues and the public at risk.
 
consettsafc said:
Where I work they have just amended the sick scheme where if you are told to isolate you will get full pay and it will not tally up on your sick pay entitlement. No mention if you are jabbed or not.
Click to expand...

They did that at my place for most of the pandemic and people totally took the piss.

Don’t get me wrong it was the right thing to do, but they’re starting to tighten it up now.
 
Frijj said:
No sympathy personally, unless they have a medical exemption from the jab. No reason not to get it and they’re putting themselves, colleagues and the public at risk.
Click to expand...
Be interesting to see how this pans out in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Employers have an obligation to protect staff and those using their business. Employees have duty to take care of their own health and safety as well as others who could be impacted by their actions.

Wouldn't surprise me to see litigation raised against companies if there's cases linked to unvaccinated staff members given the way the world is.
 
col said:
I really don't like this kind of thing, I've had my jabs, and personally think everyone should if they can, but also think it should be choice rather than being forced into it.
Surely this type of thing will go to court one day? I don't understand how it isn't discrimination to pay one employee more than another, the only difference being that one has had a vaccine and the other hasn't, when having the vaccine isn't legally required, nor specified in the contract.
Click to expand...
And the flip point of the argument, we are seeing it already at work, why is it fair that if you are double jabbed you can remain at work if your pinged by those without jabs get 10 days off work, paid.
 
mux said:
I take your point and see that it is the main point of the others who disagree with my take on it, so in that case let me ask this.

What about smokers? What about drug users? What about the obese and grossly underweight? What about those who partake in high risk sporting activities? What about those who were doing something really silly and ended up getting badly injured? What about those who got mortal drunk and ended up needing care?

I guarantee every single one of you has been in one of the above categories at some point. Some of you for most of your life. I certainly am.

These people put more burden on our emergency services and our NHS than anyone else. It's never Mrs Miggins from next door who keeps to herself who drains the resources. I spent 12 years working for the emergency services, there are others on this forum who still do who will understand exactly what I'm saying.

How far of a leap is it before smokers are the next people targeted? Then the obese or underweight? I don't think that's too far down the line if we continue on this path.

Some of you might want to sit on your high horse and say "yeah well nasty fatty smokers are bringing it all on themselves, they should accept losing their job, not being allowed healthcare, being pilloried by the rest of society, they know the risks" - I can understand that short sighted, knee jerk response. I have felt like that sometimes when I was dealing with yet another scumbag druggy criminal idiot taking up an ambulance when someone else needed it, but the reason our NHS and emergency services, and indeed our country, is amongst the best in the world is because we provide care for all. We don't make petty stipulations.

It's a short road from what's happening now to a lot more control being placed on normal people that makes life far more restrictive and difficult for those in need. If you removed all of the smokers and obese from the equation, you would save 100 times the capacity that non vaccinated people require. Oh also, while I'm on, not had the flu jab this year? Well find a new job, welcome to 2025 or 2030.

Seriously if you have read this and considered it and still disagree, that's absolutely fine with me, that's also your right. I'm not going to try and inhibit your future opportunities. I appreciate there are people who don't agree with everything I believe. Frankly I'm wrong some of the time. I don't believe I am here, but open to be persuaded so.
Click to expand...

I think you might have misinterpreted my post. I was merely making the point that I think the situation is a lot more complex because there are very valid points on both sides - the right to choose whether you have the jab, and the right of those who are impacted (by you not having the jab) to minimise risk.

Smoking, drug use and obesity are different in that there is a psychological / addiction / education issue there so I just don't think it's the same. And besides, like it or not those things have been normalised over a long time and are just something we have to manage as part of society. Should refusing a potentially life saving vaccine be normalised?

People should largely be able to live life how they want and be looked after if they get ill - a snowboarder breaking a leg or someone getting pissed and breaking their arm. But I can see the frustration with those refusing the jab because the massive difference is it's not just themselves they are putting in danger.
 
mickonline said:
And the flip point of the argument, we are seeing it already at work, why is it fair that if you are double jabbed you can remain at work if your pinged by those without jabs get 10 days off work, paid.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that argument, but it doesn't really change the legality of whats happening here. I don't actually know the solution, just can't see it being long till it's taken to court.
 

Back
Top