Employers told forcing workers to have COVID vaccine could be criminal offence
British employers have been warned that forcing staff to have the coronavirus vaccination could amount to a criminal offence, amid concerns over “no jab, no job” policies emerging.
Only care home staff in England will need to have both vaccine doses to work under current legislation, with a consultation taking place on whether to extend this to NHS employees.
But in the US, tech giants Facebook and Google are among those to say their staff will have to show proof they have been fully vaccinated before returning to their workplaces.
Live COVID updates from the UK and around the world
The equalities watchdog has urged companies to be “proportionate” and “non-discriminatory”, while the UK government has stressed that firms proposing to check the vaccination status of staff “will need to consider how this fits with their legal obligations”.
Advice from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) says “mandatory vaccination is an intrusion on an employee’s body and may discriminate on the basis of disability, or religious or philosophical belief.”
“Employers cannot forcibly vaccinate employees or potential employees, unless they work in a sector (such as care homes) where a legal requirement is introduced,” it states.
“Enforced vaccination would be a criminal offence against the person and an unlawful injury leading to claims such as assault and battery.”
The CIPD – which represents human resources professionals and has more than 160,000 members – adds that the European Convention on Human Rights “protects people from being interfered with physically or psychologically (which includes mandatory vaccination)”.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has suggested it is “a good idea” for people to be double jabbed before returning to the office but said it will not be required by legislation.
He told Sky News: “We are not going to make that legislation that every adult has to be double vaccinated before they go back to the office, but yes it is a good idea and yes some companies will require it.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Good idea’ to get two jabs before returning to office – Shapps
A government spokesperson told Sky News on Saturday: “While we would welcome employers encouraging their staff to be vaccinated, employers who propose to check the vaccination status of staff will need to consider how this fits with their legal obligations under employment, equalities, data protection, and health and safety law.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said it understands that firms will want to protect their staff and their customers by requiring employees to be vaccinated, but it advises them to take other factors into consideration.
An EHRC spokesman said: “Employers are right to want to protect their staff and their customers, particularly in contexts where people are at risk, such as care homes.
“However, requirements must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and make provision for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.”
Parliament approved legislation earlier this month to introduce compulsory COVID vaccinations for care home staff in England.
Care home staff in England will have to be fully vaccinated to work. Pic: AP
From the autumn, anyone working in a Care Quality Commission-registered care home in England must have two doses of the vaccine unless they have a medical exemption.
But the impact of such a policy on jobs is not fully understood by the government.
Its own best estimate suggests around 40,000 care home staff risk being lost as a result of the compulsory vaccinations, adding that it could cost the industry £100m to replace.
But the government is yet to compile a full impact assessment of the policy, something which frustrated several Tory MPs earlier this month when they discussed the issue.
Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
On Friday, health minister Helen Whately, in response to a written parliamentary question, maintained the assessment will be “published shortly”.
By the end of September, when all UK adults are expected to have been offered both doses of the COVID vaccine, the government plans to make full vaccination a condition of entry to a number of venues where large crowds gather.
However a number of Conservative MPs have told Sky News they do not think the government will follow through and actually introduce domestic vaccine passports.
Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories, said that vaccine passports for domestic use would be a “massive step and a misguided one”.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024