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.
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”.
Advertisement
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.
More on Covid-19
“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.
Image: 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.
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”.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation is in advanced talks to take a stake in a London-listed marketing specialist backed by Lord Ashcroft, the former Conservative Party treasurer.
Sky News has learnt that the media tycoon’s British subsidiary, News UK, is close to agreeing a deal to combine its influencer marketing division – which is called The Fifth – with Brave Bison, an acquisitive group run by brothers Oli and Theo Green.
Sources said the deal could be announced as early as Thursday morning.
News UK publishes The Sun and The Times, among other media assets.
If completed, the transaction would involve Brave Bison acquiring The Fifth with a combination of cash and shares that would result in News UK becoming one of its largest shareholders.
The purchase price is said to be in the region of £8m.
The Fifth has worked with the television host and model Maya Jama on a campaign for the energy drink Lucozade, and Amelia Dimoldenberg, the YouTube star.
More on Rupert Murdoch
Related Topics:
Its other clients include Samsung and Tommee Tippee.
The deal will be the third struck by Brave Bison this year, with the previous transactions including the purchase of Engage Digital, a key digital partner to sporting properties including the Men’s T20 Cricket World Cup.
The Green brothers took over the Brave Bison in 2020, and have overseen a sharp strategic realignment and improvement in its performance.
In 2023, it bought the podcaster and entrepreneur Steven Bartlett’s social media and influencer agency, SocialChain.
In total, the company has struck six takeover deals since the Greens assumed control.
At Wednesday’s stock market close, Brave Bison had a market capitalisation of about £31m.
Is there method to the madness? Donald Trump and his acolytes would have you believe so.
The US president is standing firm among all the market chaos.
Just this weekend, after US stock markets suffered their sharpest falls since the onset of the pandemic, Trump reposted a video on his social media platform Truth Social. This was its title: “Trump is purposefully CRASHING the market.”
The video claimed the president was engineering a flight to US government bonds, also known as treasuries – a safe haven in turbulent times. The video suggested Trump was deliberately throwing the stock market into chaos so investors would take their money out and buy bonds instead.
Why? Because demand for treasuries pushes up the price of the bonds, and that, in turn, lowers the yield on those bonds.
The yield is the interest rate on the debt, so a lower yield pushes down government borrowing costs. That would provide some relief for a government that has $9.2trn of government debt to refinance this year. Consumers also stand to benefit as the US Federal Reserve, the US central bank, would likely follow suit, feeling the pressure to cut interest rates.
Image: A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange. Pic: Reuters
Trump and his treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, have made it a key policy priority to lower yields. For a while, it looked like the plan was working. As stock markets tumbled in response to Trump’s tariffs agenda, investors ploughed their money into bonds instead.
However, Trump may have spoken too soon. On Monday, the markets had a change of heart and rapidly started selling government bonds. Thirty-year treasury yields hit 4.92% on Wednesday, their biggest three-day jump since 1982. That means government borrowing costs are rising – and not just in the US. The sell-off has spiralled to government bonds worldwide.
Rachel Reeves will be watching anxiously. Yields on Britain’s 30-year government bonds, also known as gilts, hit their highest level since May 1998. They registered a 27 basis point jump to 5.642% today – that’s on track to be the largest one-day move since the aftermath of former prime minister Liz Truss’ “mini-budget” in October 2022.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
‘These countries are dying to make a deal’
This is a big deal. It is the sharpest sell-off in the US bond market since the pandemic. Back then, investors also rushed into bonds before dumping them and the motivations, on one level, are similar.
In 2020, investors sold bonds because they had to cover losses elsewhere in their portfolios. When markets fall, as they have done over the past few days, lenders can demand that an investor who has borrowed money stump up more cash against the value of their loan because the collateral against those loans has fallen in value. This is known as a “margin call”. Government bonds are easy to sell as investors “dash for cash”.
There are signs that this may be happening again and central banks, which had to step in last time, are alert.
The Bank of England warned today of the growing risks to financial stability. “A sharp increase in government bond yields could crystallise relatively quickly,” it said.
There are other forces weighing on government bonds. With policy uncertainty unfolding in the US, investors could also be signalling that US debt isn’t the safe haven it once was. That loss of confidence also seems to have hurt the dollar, one of the world’s safest places to park your money. It’s had a turbulent journey but is down 1.15% against a basket of safe haven currencies since Trump announced widespread tariffs on 2 April.
Some are even wondering if China could be behind some of this, dumping US government debt as a revenge tactic to hurt a president who has explicitly said he wants bond yields to come down. The country holds $761bn of US government bonds, second only to Japan. If this is the case, then the US-China trade war could rapidly be evolving into a financial war.
Unilever, the FTSE-100 consumer goods giant behind Marmite and Lynx, is facing an investor backlash over its new chief executive’s multimillion pound pay package.
Sky News has learnt that ISS, a leading proxy adviser, has recommended that shareholders vote against Unilever’s remuneration report at its annual meeting later this month.
Sources familiar with ISS’s report on Unilever’s AGM resolutions say the agency objects to the discount of just €50,000 that the Ben & Jerry’s owner has applied to the base salary of Fernando Fernandez, compared to Hein Schumacher, his predecessor.
Unilever surprised the City in February when it announced Mr Schumacher would leave after just two years in the job, amid frustration in its boardroom about the pace of growth.
In an accompanying statement, Unilever said Mr Fernandez – previously the chief financial officer – would be paid a basic salary of €1.8m, modestly lower than Mr Schumacher’s €1.85m.
In a summary of ISS’s report, the proxy adviser said Mr Fernandez’s “base salary as new CEO is significant and represents a small discount to the former CEO Hein Schumacher’s base salary”.
More from Money
“The company does not appear to have sufficiently accounted previously raised shareholder concerns on the CEO role’s pay arrangement when setting Mr Fernandez’s remuneration.”
Unilever had also “disapplied time pro-rating” in respect of former executive directors’ long-term share awards, meaning that the company could have legitimately decided to award them smaller amounts of stock than it did.
On Wednesday afternoon, shares in Unilever were trading at around £44.79, giving the maker of Magnum ice cream and Persil washing-up liquid a valuation of close to £115bn.
Unilever did not respond to a request for comment.