This is where Antivaxxers are gonna hit a wall. All fine to fight for your job and maybe even win a payout for your company terminating your contract but good luck finding a new job when almost all new contracts are gonna have clauses in them regarding having the vaccine.
Last edited:
gREVUS
Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
u probably all heard about the protests here in vic. were u aware that the reason they are protesting is because govt have announced they have to get vacci e to work on construction sites?
the CFMEU (construction union) is supporting the govt.
as each state gets to make ots own rules here in aus, it would only take one to pass a no jab, no play rule and all NRL players would be bound by it, even if they only visit.
add that to travel passports for internal flights. And i really cant see exemptions being given by the NRL.
the CFMEU (construction union) is supporting the govt.
as each state gets to make ots own rules here in aus, it would only take one to pass a no jab, no play rule and all NRL players would be bound by it, even if they only visit.
add that to travel passports for internal flights. And i really cant see exemptions being given by the NRL.
matiunz
This year yet?
Contributor
Seems to be a variance in the Union between states also. Similar action was threatened in NSW but govt negotiated with the union and came to an agreement.
Community sport is looking like going the way of no jab no play also
Sup42
Historically the legal system in the West applies the principle of the greater good.
There is a strong historic precedent for Courts upholding vaccine mandates on the principle of protecting the public.
This is why the heavily conservative, Trump and GOP stacked US supreme court ruled in favour of vaccine mandates.
This is not the first rodeo. There have been multiple challenges in the past and they usually fail, which is why the twelve NZ servicemen and women challenging the vaccine mandate in the local courts, are also expected to fail on the principle of the greater good.
These are the same courts that say that your passive smoking is not your right when it impinges on the health and safety of others.
People talk about the seat belt rule, but the passive smoking example really goes to the core of the principle where your behaviour actually harms others...unlike a seat belt.
Unless there is some stunning reversal of the principle of the greater good in western legal ethics....then the players are screwed.
Sup42
That is correct, people forget that the parliament is the highest court in the land and the creator of laws.
Sup42
The coming home thing is another layer.
Our Govt is bringing in mandates for non citizens. So that is all our Aussie born players for starters....and the same applies to any home games if the bubble is reinstituted during next season and the Govt gives the NRL special dispensation to operate a team bubble so they can train and not self isolate....that part admittedly all gets a bit complicated.
Sup42
Think about the economics.
If Covid hits a club, the comp is disrupted for two weeks.
What choice, has the NRL as business but to mandate vaccines and to try to limit the spread of the virus within the competition, in the same way that clubs isolate players when they come down with the Flu or other infectious diseases.....the NRL must take all steps it can to protect their business model.
I will tell you one thing for certain. The players have no idea how dispensable they are in this scenario.
The NRL would happily get rid of any and all unvaccinated players, no matter how big a name they are....bring in some young guys who want a chance...and reset the entire competition and start from scratch.
Not one player is indispensable, when one individuals right to work puts the employment of an entire organisation at risk.
Last edited:
Sup42
Dr Ron Levy, an associate professor at the Australian National University’s college of law, said the legal prospects for people opposed to vaccine mandates was “quite poor”.
“I just don’t see a lot of limits, legally speaking,” he said. “People want to find them because they might strongly believe their freedoms are being constrained, but legally speaking they’re not going to find what they’re looking for.”
While some groups, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, have raised the prospect of discrimination laws affecting vaccine mandates, Levy said they could only apply in extremely limited cases since personal opposition to vaccines was not a form of discrimination.
“In very rare cases people might not able to have a vaccination for medical reasons so there could be an argument of discrimination on the basis of disability, but what is very, very likely is that any order or law is going to have exemptions for those sorts of people, anyway,” he said.
The legal landscape was less complicated in NSW, Levy said, because the state does not have a Human Rights Act. In the states and territories that do – Victoria, the ACT and Queensland – legislators would have to consider the human rights implications of any rules which limited access to places on the basis of vaccine status.
“I just don’t see a lot of limits, legally speaking,” he said. “People want to find them because they might strongly believe their freedoms are being constrained, but legally speaking they’re not going to find what they’re looking for.”
While some groups, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, have raised the prospect of discrimination laws affecting vaccine mandates, Levy said they could only apply in extremely limited cases since personal opposition to vaccines was not a form of discrimination.
“In very rare cases people might not able to have a vaccination for medical reasons so there could be an argument of discrimination on the basis of disability, but what is very, very likely is that any order or law is going to have exemptions for those sorts of people, anyway,” he said.
The legal landscape was less complicated in NSW, Levy said, because the state does not have a Human Rights Act. In the states and territories that do – Victoria, the ACT and Queensland – legislators would have to consider the human rights implications of any rules which limited access to places on the basis of vaccine status.
Last edited:
wizards rage
Depends how we live with the virus. You would hope they won’t be shutting down the comp in future if players test positive, especially if you can still get and transmit the virus while fully vaccinated (just not get really unwell)
Is the future not that cases in the NRL are inevitable? That we live with the virus and isolate individual people as they get it?
While pro jab, this scares me on a human rights level. I can see rampant defrauding of the system which may ultimately undermine the whole passport idea if we go this way. Like the US guy that’s had the vaccine 30 times under different names for other people.
It’s a flimsy system because there are no checks and balances on ID when getting jabbed. If the punishment is so severe it will simply be abused.
Rick O'Shay
This is a good point about player value. The whole context of player employment and worth could well be up for a total revamp. Guess this would apply to all codes.
When it comes to money in the pocket and food on the table some players may have to re-think their stance or look for a new career.
I like the idea of a NRL reset, many things they could and should attend to for the future prosperity and longevity of the game.
This may just be the opportunity to get going.
Sup42
The NRL will ask the players to provide better proof than a cardboard vaccination card, that much is clear.
Your argument about managing the virus does not take into account close contact in the literal sense. I am not talking the Govt definition of a close contact, I am referring to the very nature of a contact sport at its core.
This is therefore a very different work environment to scanning someone’s groceries from behind a perspex screen , it is even above the level of contact that medical workers have with patients.
Yet footballers are not going to wearing P.P.E. despite the intimate contact required by their work.
Delta is more infectious than Influenza.
This argument about living with the virus somehow manages to completely ignore the fact that Covid makes some people ill, and some of those seriously so. Yes in a vaccinated competition there will be outbreaks....but by what logic does that mean there should not be compulsion for something that is protective against that risk?
A young footballer is not going to die from Flu or need an organ transplant.
When there is a very effective safe guard against severe illness, it makes a mockery of the games safety laws around HIA's if people are allowed to engage in high risk behaviour when the risk is known and very clearly understood.
Last edited:
wizards rage
Fundamentally is everyone going to get the virus eventually? Is the effort to protect everyone futile when the experts say everyone will eventually be exposed anyway?
So how do we allow that to happen? In Australia it seems to be when vaccination is above 80%. I don’t see the point of hardcore NRL restrictions on the field when they go home and 1/5 of the friends you hang out with after the game may have Covid.
I guess it’s about getting the balance right.
Sup42
The controls from the NRLs POV are about managing the acute effects of viral illness, not the incidence rate of future infections.
The NRLs mandate is only seeking to protect the competition from too many sick people all at once.
The NRL do not care if the entire competition gets infected in the off season, what they are saying is that you are not going to do it during your work time at our expense thanks very much.
Last edited:
I've heard this mentioned in this thread regarding a few players but what exactly are the religious reasons for not to be vaccinated (flu or covid)? Sounds like a bullshit copout excuse cause I couldn't find any religions that are prominent in the nrl being against any vaccinations. Hopefully the NRL makes them bring proof also not just the medically exempt ones.
wizards rage
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism have no prohibition on vaccines. Some Christian variants do have an objection to vaccines.
Some like Johovahs Witnesses don’t believe in putting anything in the body. They will sometimes choose to die before even having a blood transfusions.
Others twist pro life values, distort references to ‘the mark of the beast’ and make claims about gods will.
Most countries around the world have allowed exemptions to the vaccine on religious grounds. But there is the issue of if they are sincerely held beliefs or a out for antivaxers. How do authorities determine ‘sincere’ in such a claim?
Wrighty
Haha
I was reading this and wondering who had given such a cogent and informative answer written in a way that was a pleasure to read, then I scrolled up and noticed it was my buddy wizards rage. Good post wizards excellent construct to your answer.
bruce
Contributor
It will depend on the terms of the contract. The NRL contracts are very tight, favouring the NRL and the club, not the player.
In the end with civil contracts it comes down to who can afford to pay the lawyers. Tony Kemp won his battle against the NZRL back in the day, but it cost him most of his contract money.
It has cost Jake DeBelin a fortune as well.
I think the Fat Lady has moved on.
bruce
Contributor
